Sanctuary Housing Association (202339908)

Decision
Case ID	202339908
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident lives with her partner in a ground floor flat. The resident told us she had mental health vulnerabilities, and her partner had physical vulnerabilities. The landlord is aware of both. We previously determined a case about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) reportedin2022.The resident reported further ASB on 4 January 2023 and throughout the year. The landlord took several steps in response to her ongoing reports. The resident reported a sink repair on 5 June 2023. While the landlord completed the repair, the issue reoccurred a month later. The landlord inspected as part of its stage 2 response. However, the issue was then raised as part of more recent complaints.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The resident’s reports of a sink repair.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a sink repair.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

The landlord demonstrated some positive multi-agency working and did respond to most of the resident’s reports. However, it failed to update its action plan and risk assessments during 2023 and communicate consistently with the resident. It missed opportunities to gather evidence, work with her advocate, and arrange practical noise mitigation measures. It also did not consistently document its enforcement action consideration or manage the resident’s expectations. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience which the landlord did not acknowledge or provide redress for during its internal process.

Reports of a sink repair

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s first repair report. It later reasonably arranged a jet wash and several inspections when the issue reoccurred. After the initial inspections could not identify the root cause, it agreed to complete a specialist plumbing inspection, which it delayed. In its final response it apologised for the delay, committed to complete this inspection and offered compensation. However, the landlord further delayed the inspection, which means its did not take learning and its compensation offer was not quite enough to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord requested extensions at both stages of its response in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It then responded in the extension timeframe. It apologised for the delay and offered £150 compensation which was sufficient to put this right.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 total compensation made up as follows: £550 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to her ASB reports identified in this report. £150 for delays in its sink repair it offered in its final response. We have seen evidence the landlord has paid this to the resident so it can deduct this. £50 additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delay in its response to her sink repair report identified in this report. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any ongoing ASB reports. It should complete a new risk assessment and action plan to include clearly defined actions and escalation routes. This should take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account. The action plan must include timescales for when it will complete these actions. It must be shared with the resident and us within the timescale shown. The landlord should consider involving the resident’s advocate to ensure she is represented.	No later than 27 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s delay in its response to this complaint depends on it having paid its £150 compensation offer. We have seen evidence the landlord has paid this so it does not need to take further action.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2023	The resident complained the landlord had not handled her reports of ASB well. She said this was because she had provided sufficient evidence of the ASB but it had not taken enforcement action. She also complained it had not completed her kitchen sink repair.
16 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged her complaint. It contacted her again on 23 November 2023 to request an extension.
29 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had updated her, worked with other agencies, and had reviewed her reports. It said it still did not have enough evidence to take further enforcement action. It recommended she use the noise app and continue to report further incidents to itself and the police. It said it had arranged for a contractor to attend on 5 December 2023 for plumbing work on her kitchen sink as its drainage contractor had recommended this in its last visit.
4 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 saying she was still unhappy about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
6 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation. It contacted her again on 5 January 2024 to request an extension.
19 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated it did not have enough evidence to take enforcement action at this time. It apologised it had not found the cause of her kitchen sink drainage issue and raised a further inspection. It offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling delay and the associated time and trouble. It also offered £150 for its delay in identifying the issue with the slow kitchen sink drainage and the impact on her until it completed the repair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate on 22 January 2024 as she felt the landlord’s complaint response did not resolve her dissatisfaction with its handling of her reports of ASB and her kitchen sink repair. The resident said she wanted the ASB to stop.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said the ASB had been ongoing since 2020 from a neighbour residing in her block which resulted in a previous complaint. In response to the resident’s ASB reports in 2022 the landlord created an action plan and advised her to use the noise app and diary sheets. It also placed her on the waiting list for noise monitoring equipment. In October 2022 it arranged mediation which was unsuccessful. The above information has been provided for context only.
We investigated the previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB between February and December 2022. We determined this under reference 202215994 on 31 January 2024. To avoid duplication and for continuity of events, we have investigated this complaint from January 2023 until the landlord’s final response on 19 January 2024. The landlord has not yet had the opportunity to investigate events beyond this point. If the resident remains dissatisfied with its handling of her recent reports of ASB, she can raise a further complaint directly with the landlord.
In 2023 the landlord appropriately monitored any ongoing reports. This is in line with its ASB procedure where it does not have enough evidence to take enforcement action. The resident reported ASB on 4 January 2023. She said her neighbour had taken photos of her flat. The landlord spoke to the resident the next day and discussed it with the police who said they could not take any further action. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to rely on the police’s findings. However, it could have reviewed the evidence relating to this or explained its decision not to take any further action itself. This was failure in its communication with the resident.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported 82 further incidents from the same neighbour in the year between January 2023 and January 2024. These consisted of:
1. 46 reports of noise related issues (slamming doors, loud music at night and during the day, screaming and shouting from the neighbour’s property)
2. 17 reports of drug dealing
3. 10 reports of intoxicated behaviour & general nuisance
4. 4 reports of harassment and intimidating behaviour including verbal abuse
5. 3 reports of buzzing the resident repeatedly to be let back in
6. 2 reports of the neighbour entering the resident’s property.
While the landlord demonstrated some positive communication it did not consistently update the resident or respond to her reports of ASB. Positively, the landlord did email or call multiple times most months. It also visited her in person several times throughout the year. However, it was unreasonable that:
1. It did not tell her who would be handling the ASB reports when her housing officer left in March 2023. It asked her to send reports to customer services who forwarded them to a temporary housing officer. This indirect communication meant it was less responsive during this time.
2. It did not agree a regular update schedule with the resident which was not in line with its ASB procedure.
3. It did not respond to all related ASB reports. The first example being in January 2023 when her father reported physical threats which it did not then speak to her about. It is accepted that the resident was submitting a large number of reports to the landlord, including photographs and videos. While the landlord tried to manage this at one point during summer 2023 suggesting she submitted her reports for review once a week, this was ineffective. We have seen evidence that this was managed inconsistently between housing officers.

These gaps in communication caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience during an already difficult time.

The landlord did not review its risk assessment in 2023. Our published expectations for ASB handling say landlords should review risk assessments at various intervals or when a resident notifies the landlord of a change or further incidents. There were a large number of further ASB reports, including information about the household’s vulnerabilities, and the resident repeatedly emailed explaining the negative impact. While it is positive the landlord did refer the resident for mental health support in May 2023, without consistent risk assessments it did not have an accurate picture of her circumstances during this year. This was a missed opportunity to factor this into its overall response to the ASB reports. It’s failure to do so increased the resident’s distress and contributed to the resident’s feeling the landlord “did not care” about her experience.
The landlord also did not update its action plan in 2023. Its policy does not explicitly say it should update its action plan during its monitoring phase. However, it does say that an action plan should be a live document that captures the landlord’s ongoing consideration of and response to ASB reports. While it did set out some actions it planned to take with timescales in May 2023, it did not update a formal action plan which was unreasonable.
This also meant there was no single document outlining its ongoing consideration of enforcement action and whether it should escalate its approach. This would also have helped the landlord clearly communicate its consideration to the resident and been helpful for consistent management during staffing changes. While this may have not changed the overall outcome of its enforcement consideration, it meant she kept emailing the landlord asking about its consideration of her evidence and when it would act.
When the landlord considered the resident’s reports of the neighbour dealing drugs, it decided it could not use any of the evidence she sent to take enforcement action. The landlord reasonably then contacted the police to discuss what action they were taking and also prompted them to take a more proactive response to the resident’s reports throughout the year. It showed positive partnership working and neither service felt they could obtain enough evidence for enforcement action.
The landlord also positively signposted the resident to report criminal offences to the police, and out of hours noise to the local authority who at the time offered a noise witnessing service. This is a key factor in tackling reports of ASB and the landlord showed positive examples of this.
However, there were some inconsistencies of the landlord’s collaboration with agencies. It did not respond to the local authority’s offer to arrange noise monitoring equipment in April 2023. When the resident reported feeling scared to call the noise witnessing team for fear of backlash, the landlord should have considered what it could directly do to work closer with the local authority to gather evidence of the reported noise. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s advocate emailing in July 2023 beyond asking some data protection questions. This was a missed opportunity to work with the advocate to further support the resident.
It is not our role to consider whether noise reported by a resident amount to ASB or statutory noise nuisance. As part of the landlord’s investigation into noise reports, it should consider whether the noise may be due to noise transference through the fabric of the building as we highlighted in our Spotlight Report on noise complaints.
The resident regularly reported heavy footsteps and slamming doors. The landlord did consider fitting door closures in July 2023. However, it unreasonably delayed for 6 months in arranging this until after its final response. While a survey or other practical measures may not have resolved the issue, its failure to consider these meant it missed an opportunity for potential resolution.
Evidence gathering is a key part of investigating ASB. The landlord positively tried to gather evidence and as a result it approved the resident’s request for CCTV outside her flat and offered to do a 2 hour noise test in June 2023. However, we identified several missed opportunities for it to gather further evidence such as:
1. It did not respond to, or consider the residents requests for it to fit communal CCTV.
2. It poorly planned and coordinated noise monitoring equipment. Its records are unclear, first showing it put her on the waiting list in 2022, but then again in May 2023. It delayed offering noise monitoring equipment until November 2023, despite the local authority offering its own service. By this point the resident refused this due to frustration with the landlord’s general response.
3. It said in a May 2023 letter it would consider monitoring the reports of noise related ASB in person and using equipment, but did not do this or document its consideration.
4. It did not consider placing noise monitoring equipment in the neighbour’s flat despite its legal team suggesting this in July 2023.
5. It did not record clearly if it reviewed the resident’s noise app recordings submitted over the summer until November 2023. It also delayed responding to her concern that it had not reviewed them. While it was positive that it repeatedly told her to use the app and why it was important, and help her initially set it up, it could not demonstrate any further action.
6. It delayed emailing other neighbours for supporting evidence until November 2023.
7. It did not clearly and consistently document its review of the evidence the resident sent in and if it could use this for enforcement action, or at least not until October 2023.

While we cannot say what additional evidence the landlord would have gathered without these failings, its failings did exacerbate the resident’s distress and inconvenience. They also contributed to her frustration the landlord was not responding to the ASB reports in a proactive way.

Positively, the landlord did verbally warn the resident’s neighbour not to enter her property in December 2023. We cannot conclude based on the evidence we have seen the landlord should have taken formal enforcement action earlier in 2023. However, it should have documented its consideration of the evidence more consistently and explicitly during 2023. This would have helped it evidence its consideration better and communicate this clearly to the resident.
The landlord took some appropriate steps in 2023 to manage the resident’s expectations about enforcement action. However, it’s approach to this was inconsistent. In Summer and October 2023 it told her it was close to having sufficient evidence to take enforcement action. This did not occur and raised the resident’s expectations unreasonably, causing her distress. This is referenced in the resident’s correspondence with the landlord as a point of frustration for her.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a sink repair
Finding	Service failure

The resident said to us the kitchen sink drainage issue had been ongoing before 2023. While the landlord also referenced previous repairs in its records, neither the resident nor the landlord have provided us with any evidence of previous repairs. We will therefore investigate from the first evidenced report in June 2023.
On 5 June 2023 the resident reported the drainage issue had reoccurred. The landlord appropriately attended to clear the drains 8 days later. However, this visit did not resolve the drainage issue and the resident kept reporting it reoccurring.
It was unreasonable the landlord did not fully resolve the repair within the 45 day routine repair timescale in its repairs policy. The landlord said it struggled to identify the case of the drainage issue. In response to the resident’s concerns the landlord:
1. Appropriately arranged for a drain contractor to attend on 15 July 2023 after the resident reported the issue had reoccurred on 11 July 2023.
2. Chased the contractor regarding promised further works the resident reported. It then reasonably arranged for it to reassess the sink and jet wash on 19 September 2023.
3. Arranged for a plumber to inspect. It raised this job on 26 October 2023 but this seems to not have gone ahead as it said in its stage 1 response of 29 November 2023 it would arrange this. The landlord unreasonably delayed a month in arranging this visit and did not communicate with the resident about its delay. It also has no record of the visit demonstrating a record keeping issue but did reference the visit in its final complaint response.
4. Arranged for her housing officer to visit in the middle of January 2024 to check the sink. There is no record this visit took place demonstrating a further record keeping issue and delays.
The resident explained how the landlord’s delay in repairing her kitchen sink caused her distress and inconvenience due to the length of time this issue was ongoing, and due to having to accommodate multiple contractor visits. In its final response on 19 January 2024 the landlord promised to arrange a full pipework inspection as the plumber suspected a pipework issue. It appropriately acknowledged the inconvenience experienced and offered compensation.
However, the landlord delayed completing the inspection until 29 February 2023, over a month later without an explanation or clear communication to the resident. This was unreasonable and the landlord failed to follow up on its final response. Taking its further delay in inspecting into consideration the landlord’s apology and offer of £150 compensation was not quite enough to put things right.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional £50, making a total of £200 in compensation for the failings in its response to the sink repair. This is an appropriate level of compensation to remedy the failings the landlord acknowledged, the additional failings we found, and the associated detriment to the resident.
The landlord advised us of 2 further complaints about later repair works relating to the kitchen sink which were recommended as part of the plumber’s inspection. These complaints have not been brought to us by the resident and we have not been provided with copies of the landlord’s final responses by either party.
The repairs raised after the inspection in February 2023 and the resident’s further complaints are outside the scope of this investigation as we focused up to the point the landlord followed up on its stage 2 response. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s further response to this repair, she may wish to bring these complaints to us for investigation. The landlord has confirmed to us it completed the sink repair in late 2025and we have not seen evidence around the circumstances of the final repair.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days, this is shorter than the timeframe set out in our Code of 5 working days. It responded one working day after its policy timeframe. While this is a shortcoming, it is not service failure as it responded within the timeframes set out in our Code. The landlord has since updated its policy to align with our Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy allows the landlord to request an extension if it cannot respond within 10 working days at stage 1. This is in line with our Code. The landlord did this and provided the stage 1 response within the timeframes of the extension. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and our Code. It requested a further extension at Stage 2 in line with its policy and our Code and appropriately responded within that extension.
The landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident and offered £150 in compensation. This level of compensation is in line with its compensation guidance and is within the suggested range for maladministration in our Remedies guidance. This is an appropriate level of compensation to remedy the failings the landlord acknowledged and the associated impact on the resident. We have seen evidence that this has been paid to the resident which was reasonable.

Learning

The landlord should make sure it follows through on any actions it promises to consider. For instance, in May 2023 it sent a letters saying it would consider monitoring ASB noise in the property itself but did not do this or explain why it was not. If the landlord follows through on actions it mentions to residents, this will help build confidence in its response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should make sure it keeps clear records of its ASB response consideration including an action plan and updated risk assessments. This will help it evidence its consideration and response to the resident’s reports. It will also help it review its ASB response over time to decide whether it should change or escalate its approach.
The landlord should make sure it keeps clear records of it raising repair jobs and visits it makes during repairs. This will help it coordinate its response effectively and evidence its actions.

Communication

The landlord should make sure to keep residents updated with its consideration and plan during periods of prolonged ASB reports. We appreciate it can be difficult to respond to the volume of information provided, however responding clearly helps manage the resident’s expectations. It can also indicate the landlord is taking each report seriously and is responsive. It is important for the landlord to plan for this during staffing changes and handovers as shown by these events.
It should make sure to communicate clearly with residents during repairs. This will help it manage the resident’s expectations about repairs timeframes.