Sanctuary Housing Association (202338359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338359

Sanctuary Housing Association

7 October 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

The complaint is about:
1. Repairs to the communal front door.
2. Repairs to the lift.
3. The absence of a scheme manager.
4. The standard of grounds maintenance, cleaning, and concerns about the bins.
5. The handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began in March 2013. The property is a 1 1-bedroom ground-floor flat in a sheltered housing scheme. The building has 4 floors and 1 lift. There are no vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s housing records for the resident.
The landlord received a report that the communal front door was not secure on 19 October 2023. It also received a report that the lift was out of service on 23 October 2023.
The resident made a complaint on 3 November 2023. She said she was making a complaint on behalf of the other residents who lived in the building. She noted the communal front door had been broken for several weeks and the residents were unable to meet in the lounge area due to concerns over safety. She also noted the lift was frequently out of service, the scheme manager had not been replaced, and the communal areas and garden were not maintained. In addition, she said the residents struggled to move the bins.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2023 and said:
1. It received a report on 19 October 2023 that the communal front door was not secure. The door was not repaired during the initial visit and multiple orders had since been raised to fix it.
2. It received a report that the lift was not working on 23 October 2023. While it initially attended within its 24-hour timescale, a further 2 jobs had to be raised.
3. It confirmed that a member of staff was managing the scheme.
4. It was not aware of any specific issues regarding the communal cleaning or maintenance of the garden. It would visit to ensure all works were carried out to the correct standard.
5. It had referred the resident’s concerns regarding the bins to its housing team.
6. It would offer the resident £50 compensation. This included £25 for the multiple callouts for the door and £25 for the repeat visits to resolve the issues with the lift.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 December 2023. She said the communal door had not been repaired and she felt unsafe.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 April 2024 and said:
1. Temporary repairs were carried out to the communal front door while it waited for parts to be delivered. The door was now working, and residents could push the release button if it did not open automatically.
2. There was a delay in recruiting a cleaner. The communal areas were cleaned by its estate team in the interim, although this was on a sporadic basis. The post had since been filled and the cleaner now attended on a weekly basis. No concerns had been raised about cleaning since the cleaner was employed in November 2023.
3. The garden was maintained in accordance with the specification, which over the winter months was carried out every 2 weeks. The team had experienced issues maintaining the garden in certain areas as scaffolding had been erected and residents had also planted shrubs.
4. Compensation had been paid to the residents for the lift breaking down. No issues had been reported since 21 November 2023.
5. It acknowledged that there was no scheme manager for a short period of time while a new member of staff was recruited. The role was carried out by other employees until the new manager started on 21 November 2023.
6. There were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It was sorry for this.
7. It would increase its offer of compensation by £125. This included £75 for the delays and inconvenience caused and £50 for its poor complaints handling.

Post complaint events

The resident continued to experience problems with the communal front door and lift after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord told this Service there were delays in resolving the issues with the communal door and lift. It is unclear from the housing records when the communal front door was repaired. The lift was repaired on 31 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges the resident experienced further issues with the communal front door and lift after she had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
While the recent issues with the communal front door and lift may be linked to the previous problems, we are unable to reach a determination about this as the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to these new incidents. Therefore, this Service has not considered them as part of the current complaint. Our investigation is focused on the period up until the landlord gave its final response to the complaint in April 2024.
If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the more recent problems with the communal front door and lift, she can raise a new complaint about this through the landlord’s internal complaints process. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied and has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including doors and lifts. The resident pays a weekly service charge to cover the cost of cleaning the building, maintaining the garden, and repairs to the door entry system and lift.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will carry out repairs promptly and in 1 visit, where possible. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs are made safe within 24 hours and include repairs that pose a threat to the health and safety of residents and the fabric of the building. This includes insecure external doors and lifts that are not working.
2. Appointed repairs are completed within 45 days.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook says it will keep communal areas tidy and well maintained where a service charge is payable. Its grounds maintenance schedule says it will maintain borders once a month between November and February. No grass cutting is carried out during this period.
The landlord’s cleaning schedule confirms it cleans the communal areas in the building once a week.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days at the time the resident made her complaint. It replies to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them. It also says it will contact residents prior to issuing a response to discuss the outcome of the investigation with them.
The landlord’s compensation guide says it will offer an apology and compensation when it gets things wrong. This includes occasions when there have been delays in providing services or responding to complaints. When determining the level of compensation to award, the landlord considers the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. Awards up to £50 are made where there has been a low impact on a resident. Compensation up to £75 is offered where there has been a minor delay in responding to a complaint.

Repairs to the communal front door

While it is not disputed the communal front door was not secure, it has not been possible to establish from the housing records how frequently it was out of action and for how long. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken.
In this case, the records provided by the landlord were confusing and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The housing records confirm the landlord was notified the communal front door was not secure on 19 October 2023. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on the same day. This was in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. It said the automatic sliding door mechanism was not working and the door had to be opened manually. It also noted some of the residents were frail and could not exit the building due to the door not working.
It is unclear whether the contractor attended within 24 hours, as required to do so under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord confirmed on 20 October 2023 that the appointment had been moved to 23 October 2023, although the reasons for this are unknown. It is also unclear if the contractor attended on this date or the resident was provided with an update. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this, including providing the resident with an estimated timescale. The landlord’s failure to do this would have likely added to the resident’s distress and concerns about safety.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed it attended on 27 October 2023, although it is unclear if any work was carried out. It said one of the residents advised the operative that another company had attended and had ordered parts for the door. The contractor agreed to check and repair the communal front door. There is no evidence any timescales were agreed with the contractor for doing this. It is also unclear if the contractor attended the follow-up appointment.
The landlord received a further report on 2 November 2023 that the communal front door was not working. It contacted its contractor on 3 November 2023, who noted it had passed the job back to the landlord on the previous day. It said it did this as it did not deal with automatic doors. This caused confusion. Following clarification from the landlord, the contractor agreed to attend within 24 hours. Whilst this was appropriate, it is unclear if the contractor did this or if the resident was provided with an update.
The resident made a complaint on 3 November 2023. She said the communal front door had been out of order for over 2 weeks and was not secure. She said she felt unsafe and noted the door could not be closed.
The landlord asked the contractor for an update on 15 November 2023 and was told the job was closed. The contractor noted another company had attended to complete the work. The landlord noted this was not the case and it had not raised a job with any other contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a further job with the contractor. The contractor told the landlord on 20 November 2023 that new parts were required for the door, and it would provide a quote. It told the landlord on 8 December 2023 that it provided the quote on 25 November 2023.
The landlord noted on 4 December 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had raised 3 repairs to fix the front door since receiving a report that it was not secure on 19 October 2023. It offered an apology for failing to repair the door during the first visit and noted it had now been repaired. It offered the resident £25 compensation. The offer was not reasonable in the circumstances given the door had not been fully operational for over 6 weeks.
The landlord received a further report that the communal front door was not working on 19 December 2023. An emergency repair was raised on the same day in accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. This was appropriate. It raised a further emergency job on 20 December 2023 and noted the door was jammed wide-open.
There is no evidence the contractor attended as requested to do so by the landlord. It confirmed on 23 December 2023 that it had ordered a part for the door. No timescales were provided for completing the work. The landlord chased up the contractor on 9 January 2024 and was advised it was still waiting for the parts to be delivered. It chased the contractor up again on 23 January 2024.
The landlord noted on 2 April 2024 in its final complaint response that temporary repairs were carried out to the communal front door while it waited for parts to be delivered. No timescales were given for completing the work. It said the door was working and residents could push the release button if the door did not open automatically.
The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation by £75. It has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint about the communal front door. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.Nevertheless, the landlord’s increased offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances given the door had not been fully operational for several months.
In summary, the landlord’s poor record-keeping has made it difficult to establish how frequently the communal front door was out of action and for how long. It is, however, evident the landlord’s communication was poor at times and there were delays in repairing the door.
The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on a number of occasions that she did not feel safe and was reluctant to use the communal lounge and its poor communication did little to reassure her. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal front door, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £100 compensation.

Repairs to the lift

The housing records confirm the landlord received a report on 23 October 2023 that the lift was not working.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on the same day and advised its contractor that there was only 1 lift in the building and the situation was affecting a number of vulnerable residents. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 October 2023 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The contractor found the lift was in working order when it arrived. The lift was tested, and no faults were found.
The lift was reported as not working again on 14 November 2023. While the landlord arranged an emergency repair, it is unclear from the housing records whether the landlord’s contractor attended within 24 hours. It noted on 16 November 2023 that the lift was stuck on the ground floor, and the doors would not close. The contractor established the lift doors on another floor had dropped. The door was adjusted and the lift left in working order.
The landlord received a report on the 20 November 2023 that the lift doors were closing very quickly and hitting people. An emergency repair was ordered on the same day in accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord’s contractor attended on 22 November 2023. This was outside the 24- hour response time. The door timer was reset and the lift left in working order.
The landlord offered an apology on 4 December 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response for the number of callouts. It also offered the resident £25 compensation. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. It confirmed in its final complaint response on 2 April 2024 that no further concerns had been reported about the lift since 21 November 2023. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation by £75. While it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint about the lift, it was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord’s record-keeping has made it difficult to establish if its contractor attended to the resident’s reports of the lift breaking down in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. However, the landlord offered an apology and compensation in accordance with its compensation policy. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the lift breaking down.

The absence of a scheme manager

This Service acknowledges a member of staff’s decision to leave an organisation is outside the control of the landlord. In this case, the scheme manager left in September 2023. A new manager was appointed on 21 November 2023 following a recruitment process.
The landlord confirmed on 4 December 2023 that cover arrangements were in place. It told the resident on 2 April 2024 in its final complaint response that while the post was empty for a short period of time, cover arrangements were put in place for appointments, welfare visits, and compliance checks. This provided clarity.
In summary, while this Service empathises with the resident and recognises the importance of consistency, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable in the circumstances. It had no control over the member of staff’s decision to leave the organisation, put in place relevant cover, and undertook a recruitment process to fill the vacancy. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

The standard of grounds maintenance, cleaning, and concerns about the bins

The resident told the landlord on 3 November 2023 in her complaint that the garden was overgrown, and the communal areas of the building were dirty. She also noted the bin store had not been cleaned and the residents were unable to put the bins out for collection as they were heavy.
The landlord noted on 4 December 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was not aware of any specific concerns regarding the garden or cleaning. It said it would arrange to visit the building to ensure all work was completed to the correct standard. It also said it would refer the resident’s concerns regarding the bins to its housing team to establish if any help could be provided. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord carried out an inspection of the garden and communal areas after issuing its stage 1 complaint response. Neither is there any evidence it provided the resident with an update or confirmed its position regarding the bins. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns.
The landlord noted on 2 April 2024 in its final complaint response that there was a delay in recruiting a cleaner and that while the building was cleaned by other members of staff during this period, this was on a sporadic basis. The landlord confirmed a new cleaner was appointed in October 2023 and they attended on a weekly basis. It also said no further concerns about the standard of cleaning had been raised since November 2023. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the identified service failure. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
The landlord confirmed it attended to the garden every 2 weeks in accordance with the specification. This included cutting back overgrown shrubbery and maintaining the trees. It also noted it had been unable to complete some work due to scaffolding being erected and because some residents had planted their own plants in the borders. It said it had asked the residents to only plant plants in pots and to remove trellis that had been attached to the wall This provided clarity.
In summary, while the landlord said it would arrange for the garden and building to be inspected, there is no evidence it did this. It also failed to provide the resident with an update or confirm if it could provide assistance with moving the bins. The landlord failed to offer any compensation for the cleaning, which it said was sporadic while it recruited a cleaner. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance, cleaning and concerns about the refuge bins, for which it is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

The associated complaint

The resident made a complaint on 3 November 2023. The complaint was acknowledged on 13 November 2023. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said it would provide a response by 21 November 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 November 2023 and said it needed more time to investigate the resident’s complaint. While this was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy, it did not advise the resident about the delay until the complaint deadline date. It said it would provide a response by 5 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2023. The landlord did not contact the resident before issuing its complaint response or offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 December 2023. The complaint was not acknowledged until 27 March 2023. This was some 3 months after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with its complaints policy. The landlord said it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and offered to discuss its response with the resident. This was appropriate. The landlord acknowledged it should have contacted her before issuing its stage 1 complaint to discuss the outcome and address any outstanding concerns she had. This demonstrated it took learning from the complaint. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaints handling. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. The situation caused the resident time and trouble in having to pursue her complaint. The landlord offered an apology and compensation in its final complaint response. In this case there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal front door.
In accordance with paragraph 53bof the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the absence of the scheme manager.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance, cleaning and refuge bins.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports about the communal front door.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance, cleaning and refuge bins.
3. The £100 compensation previously offered to the resident for the delays in resolving the issues with the communal front door, if not already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if the communal front door has been repaired. If further work is required, the landlord must agree these in writing and provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the action plan, including timescales for completing the repairs.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the other resident’s listed in the resident’s complaint and take action as set out in paragraphs 61, 62 and 63 of this report.

Recommendations.

The landlord pays the £75 compensation previously offered to the resident for the issues with the lift and its poor complaints handling.