Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sanctuary Housing Association (202343098)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343098

Sanctuary Housing Association

3 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
    2. Repairs to the lifts.
    3. Repairs to the communal door.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner. The property is a flat on the eighth floor of a high-rise block. At the time of the complaint, the freeholder of the block was Swan Housing Association. A managing agent was responsible for the repairs. Since this, a merger took place and Sanctuary Housing Association now manage the property. For the purposes of this report, actions of the landlord and the managing agent will be referred to as ‘the landlord’.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 December 2023. He was unhappy that it had not repaired the communal door for “months”. He said that the smashed glass and overall appearance impacted their safety and property value. He was also unhappy with its lack of communication about repairing this. The resident later added concerns with repairs needed to 2 lifts and a loss of heating and hot water.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 December 2023. It apologised for its delay in repairing the door. It said it was awaiting a part which it would fit as soon as possible. It advised the resident to report a repair for the smashed glass as it did not have any records of this. It also apologised for the breakdown of 2 lifts, and for the loss of heating and hot water. It said it had repaired the lifts and made a temporary repair to the district heating system. It also asked him to confirm his contact details to ensure he received repair updates going forward.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 22 December 2023. He said he had incurred additional costs while he had no heating or hot water. He also noted he had intermittent temperature issues when using the shower. He asked how it would prevent further repairs needed to the heating system, lifts, and door going forward. He felt it needed to offer assurances that it would work to prevent such issues in the future.
  5. On 30 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It explained it had completed a temporary repair to the heating system. It would update residents of the works needed once it had finalised this. It also explained how it would prevent a reoccurrence going forward. It asked him to report any outstanding issues with the intermittent hot water so it could repair this. It also confirmed it would write to all residents separately about offsetting any heating and hot water costs while it was not working. It also confirmed it had repaired the lifts and the communal door. It offered him £25 compensation for its delayed stage 1 response.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said he incurred additional costs while he had no heating or hot water. He also felt it needed a better plan to repair future lift breakdowns appropriately.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water

  1. The resident’s heating and hot water is supplied by a communal boiler (district heating system). The resident pays a charge for the heating and hot water at the property. The landlord is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the boiler.
  2. On 27 November 2023, the communal boiler stopped working. This was due to a leak from above which ran onto the boiler system. The landlord tried to repair the boiler on the same day. However, it could not do so. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for it to try to complete the repair in line with its emergency timescale set out in its repairs policy. It later reinstated the heating and hot water through a temporary fix on 29 November 2023.
  3. During this period, the evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact caused. It offered temporary heaters to residents within the block. Our spotlight report on Cold Comfort highlights this as good practice. By doing so, it showed the landlord had appropriately prepared a contingency plan for such situations. While the resident said he did not receive a heater, the evidence suggests the landlord had offered this to all residents. We have also seen no evidence which suggests that the resident had alerted the landlord to the fact that he had not received a heater at the time. Similarly, there is no evidence showing he had expressed concern about cold conditions within the property during this time.
  4. Additionally, the landlord sent frequent updates to all residents about the works during this period. It was unfortunate that it did not have the correct contact details for the resident. Nevertheless, the evidence shows its communication was appropriate, and it updated his details after becoming aware of the issue.
  5. The landlord was transparent about finding a longer-term solution for the boiler. It said this was a large project which would take time to complete. It also explained it could not communicate any costs as it had not yet confirmed the most cost-effective lasting repair. This was understandable given the issue was complex and impacted many residents at the block. The evidence shows it considered whether it could offset the costly repair through its insurance or through a Section 20 consultation with leaseholders. As such, the time taken to arrange a lasting repair was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident was concerned that he incurred additional costs for heating and hot water during this period. Within the complaint responses, the landlord explained it would consider compensation or reimbursement separately. This was reasonable given it needed to treat everyone fairly and ensure it considered the impact caused to all residents.
  7. After the complaints process ended, the landlord confirmed it would credit all residents for the loss of service. It said it would credit £16 to their community heating tariff. While it is unclear how the landlord calculated this, we consider the amount is proportionate to balance any costs incurred. This is because it took 2 days to complete the repair. During this time, the landlord took appropriate action to try and mitigate any impact to residents. However, we note that it would have been good practice if the landlord had provided a clear explanation of how it calculated the amount.
  8. The resident was concerned about how the landlord would prevent any further issues with the heating and hot water in the future. In response, the landlord explained it had installed a canopy over the boiler system to prevent water damage going forward. This was appropriate as it showed it wanted to learn from this issue and take preventative measures. It also understandably offered reassurance to the resident that it took his concerns seriously.
  9. Similarly, the resident mentioned he was concerned that the boiler had previously required repairs. While we note his concerns, the landlord cannot reasonably predict such issues. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to previous reports of a loss of heating and hot water in a timely manner.
  10. The resident said he experienced intermittent temperature issues since the landlord repaired the boiler. He said this caused bursts of cold water while showering. In response, the landlord advised him to report any outstanding issues as a repair so it could resolve this. This was appropriate as there is no evidence that he had previously reported this issue to the landlord. By providing this advice, it showed it was committed to putting things right for him.
  11. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of a loss of heating and hot water. It delivered temporary heaters when it could not resolve the issues on the same day, and it kept residents updated. Following the resident’s concerns about a lack of updates, it ensured it held correct contact details to put this right going forward. It was also transparent in explaining the difficulties in arranging a lasting repair. Considering this, we have found no maladministration by the landlord.

Handling of repairs to the lifts

  1. The resident was concerned with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lifts. The block has 2 lifts. On 4 December 2023, both lifts stopped working. The landlord repaired one of the lifts on the following day, however, it needed to order a part to repair the second lift. It later repaired the second lift on 13 December 2023. The time taken was in line with the landlord’s service level agreement to repair lifts within 15 days.
  2. During this time, the evidence shows it sent regular updates to residents within the block. This was appropriate. Though, as noted above, it was unfortunate that the resident did not receive these updates.
  3. In the resident’s escalation request, he said the lifts previously had been out of order at the same time. He listed 4 dates between January 2022 and May 2023 when this occurred. He felt the landlord should repair the lifts sooner to prevent increased demand on the second lift which in turn caused the second lift to breakdown.
  4. We understand the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord cannot reasonably predict when a lift may require repairs. It also cannot guarantee that the need for repairs would not return in the future. Under the lease agreement, the landlord must complete repairs to the communal parts, including the lift. From the evidence provided, the landlord complied with its responsibilities under the lease. It responded swiftly and appropriately to the lift breakdowns in December 2023.
  5. The landlord has also provided us with copies of its servicing and maintenance reports for the lifts. This shows it completes regular checks of the lift every 6 months. This is good practice as it provides an opportunity to keep the lift in good working order.
  6. Considering the above, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lifts.

Handling of repairs to the communal door

  1. The resident complained about the communal front door. He said the smashed glass looked bad and he was worried about whether this posed a security risk to the block.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show it raised 3 jobs between February and June 2023. However, it is unclear which door the records refer to. For example, the records show images of both an external glass door and an internal “main” door with glass panels. Additionally, some of the repair jobs do not provide an outcome as to what happened or if it has completed the repair. Due to this, we cannot establish whether the landlord responded appropriately to the communal front door complained about. This is a record keeping failure.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised a new works order to repair the communal door. Internal emails suggest it had been assessing whether to replace or repair the door since October 2023. However, given the complaint, it decided to repair the door to resolve the issue. Due to the poor records, it is unclear whether the landlord completed any interim repairs since October 2023.
  4. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint responses were confusing. In its initial response, it said it was unaware of any outstanding repairs needed to a glass panel on the communal doors. Though it noted it was awaiting a part to repair the communal entrance door. Within the resident’s complaint escalation, he said it had now repaired the door, but he was unhappy that it took “months” for it to do so. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in repairing the entrance door within its final response. However, the landlord’s repair records do not refer to ordering and awaiting a part. We therefore cannot assess what happened or if it resolved the resident’s concern with the smashed glass. This is a further record keeping failure.
  5. In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted our investigation. While it apologised for the delay in repairing the door, we cannot assess what works were needed, how long it took to do so, and whether it could have reasonably avoided any delays or not. Although the property had a concierge to monitor the building which may have reduced any potential security risks, there is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident about his concerns. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
  6. The landlord should pay £125 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the communal door. This acknowledges the confusion caused by the landlord’s records and the resulting impact on its response to his concerns with the communal door. It also considers the time taken to repair the door which the resident said was “months” and the failure to address the resident’s concerns over safety. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings that impacted the resident.
  7. We note that following the merger, the landlord now manages the repairs itself. Given this, we have not ordered the landlord to reflect on its record keeping in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord took 24 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This was 4 working days beyond the target timescale set out in its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for its delayed response. It also offered him £25 compensation for this. This was a proportionate amount to reflect the time and trouble caused by the minimal delay in responding to his complaint.
  2. It is unclear when the resident added concerns related to the lift and heating and hot water as part of his complaint. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed his dissatisfaction about these aspects within its responses. Additionally, it also outlined its target timescales to repair lifts following his query about this. This was good practice. By being transparent, it gave an opportunity to help ease his concerns.
  3. Within the landlord’s responses, it referred to relevant dates about the repairs. However, it incorrectly noted some of the dates within this. For example, it said it repaired the second lift on 8 December 2023, when its records show this was 13 December 2023. It also said it reinstated the heating and hot water on 28 November 2023, but it did so on the following day. This was confusing and the resident noted the discrepancy in his complaint escalation.
  4. As noted previously, the landlord now manages the repairs itself following the merger. As such, we have not made a recommendation related to this shortcoming in the complaint responses. However, the landlord should be mindful of providing accurate information within its complaint responses.
  5. In summary, the landlord acknowledged it failed to respond in line with its policy at stage 2. We consider that the landlord’s offer was a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances. The amount reflected the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delayed response. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings which did not impact the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, the apology combined with the offer of compensation, amounted to an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lifts.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £125 compensation. This is to reflect the time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the communal door. It should pay this directly to him.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £25 as previously offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. This is because we have found reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this.