Sanctuary Housing Association (202343871)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which is a flat in a building comprised of similar properties. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. For clarity, this report refers to the leaseholder as “the resident” and the freeholder as “the landlord”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Planned repairs to the building, including associated damp and damage.
   2. A request to buy back the property.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the planned repairs to the building, including associated damp and damage.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request to buy back the property.
5. The landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which satisfactorily resolves the failures in its complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

  Planned repairs to the building, including associated damp and damage

6. There were delays by the landlord in assessing whether a temporary roof repair to the building was required whilst the section 20 procedure was ongoing. There were also delays arising through the section 20 procedure itself. Whilst it was right to advise the resident she was responsible for internal repairs, it failed to address the root cause in the fabric of the building and there was a lack of proactive communication.

       A request to buy back the property

7. The landlord showed understanding about the issues in the block and agreed to explore buying the property back from the resident. It took steps to arrange valuations and communicated with the resident about this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaints handling

8. There were delays in the landlord’s complaints handling which impacted the resident’s ability to refer her complaint to this service. The landlord recognised these failures and offered an appropriate level of compensation as redress.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident raised her concerns, through the landlord’s complaints procedure, about its handling of 2 separate issues, namely its handling of repairs to the roof and associated damp/damage, and subsidence issues at the block. For ease of reading, we have assessed these under a single determination as they were linked to the landlord’s wider handling of a section 20 consultation in the building, however we have split the assessment into subheadings.
10. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the building, and the resident is responsible for repairs to the interior of the flat.

Roof repairs

11. In or around February 2022 the resident told the landlord about an issue with the roof of the building which she said was affecting the ceiling in her flat. The landlord told the resident about their respective responsibilities under the lease agreement.
12. The landlord also informed the resident that it was preparing a statement of estimates following a section 20 consultation that began in October 2021, which included roof works. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords must consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying works where any individual leaseholder’s contribution will exceed £250. The consultation process involves several stages, including a notice of intention to carry out the works, an invitation for leaseholders to comment and nominate contractors, and a notice of estimates once quotations have been obtained.
13. In March 2022, following ongoing contact with the resident, the landlord again explained that roof repairs were included in the planned works. However, it said it would carry out an interim roof survey to determine whether any temporary repairs were needed before the scheduled works. On 5 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had completed the survey and that temporary repairs were not required. It reiterated that the roof repairs would be addressed as part of the planned works. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the roof to check for temporary repairs, ahead of the planned works.
14. The landlord was also right to advise the resident that it was not responsible for carrying out works to remedy any internal damage or repairs to her flat. We note the landlord shared the details of its insurance providers with the resident at this time so she could submit a claim if she felt it was liable for the damage to her ceiling. This was reasonable.
15. Whilst the landlord accepted there were delays in the section 20 process, it missed an opportunity to re-assess the roof once it became aware the issues were deteriorating, and particularly due to the length of time taken to finalise the planned works. In any event, the block repairs were not completed until around April 2025. This was a disproportionate amount of time to expect the resident to have a potential leak into her flat, caused by the roof of the block.
16. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that delays to the planned works may have resulted in a damp and damage inside the resident’s flat. It provided the resident with the details of its building insurers which the resident contributed to through her service charges so she could consider a claim for any damage caused. It was positive the landlord recognised this and again provided the details of its insurers.
17. In addition to this, there is no evidence which shows the landlord considered whether it was necessary to apply for a dispensation of the section 20 due to the works which were required, and the resident’s continued contact with the landlord. This approach could have been considered by the landlord, particularly if the conditions at the block were continuing to deteriorate and it accepted that delays may have resulted in damp and damage inside the resident’s flat.
18. The landlord offered £300 compensation for the delays, lack of actions taken, and its poor communication about what was happening with the planned works.

Subsidence

19. When the landlord started the section 20 consultation in October 2021 it provided a summary of the works it intended to complete. These included:
    1. Subsidence stabilisation.
    2. Driveway repairs.
    3. Rendering.
    4. New facias.
    5. External redecoration.
    6. Timber repairs
    7. New windows and doors.
    8. Moss removal.
20. The section 20 consultation moved through various stages but appeared to be restarted in around mid-2022. The landlord said it widened the programme of works to deliver value for money for its leaseholders. In any situation, it was not until early 2024 when the landlord appeared to finalise its tendering. It was unreasonable to restart the section 20 consultations. The various consultations were confusing and would have likely contributed to the delays faced by the resident.
21. However, as previously mentioned, all of the repairs were not completed until around April 2025. This was a long amount of time in any event. Whilst we understand the landlord faced unforeseen delays, such as challenges within the planning system and the requirement for specific surveys, the length of time overall was unreasonable and protracted.
22. It would have been understandably distressing and frustrating for the resident to feel that no progress was being made and the conditions in her property were continuing to deteriorate.
23. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and said it was aware of the subsidence issues in the block. It accepted there had been difficulties in the section 20 consultation which was still ongoing and suggested it would consider a buy back of the property in light of the resident’s concerns.
24. As previously mentioned, the landlord offered £300 for the overall delays in its handling of the planned works in the block and its poor communication. Whilst is was positive the landlord made this offer, at the time of its complaint responses this was not fully reflective of the length of time taken to move things forward, and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced whilst waiting for the works to be completed.
25. The landlord then made an additional compensation offer of £650 following the £300 offered in its stage 2 complaint response. Overall, these combined amounts were reasonable and proportionately recognised the significant delays, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website.
26.  Whilst the landlord eventually offered reasonable compensation, this offer was not made until after the landlord had exhausted its own complaints procedure and following this service’s involvement. Our investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint within its complaints process and any offers of redress made during the complaints process. Therefore, there is a finding of maladministration for the landlord in its handling of the repairs as it did not offer reasonable redress during the complaints process, it only offered this after the end of the complaints process. In addition to this, the repairs were not fully completed until almost a year after the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
27. As it is unclear whether or not the compensation has been paid to the resident. We order the landlord to contact her and ensure the £950 it offered overall for its failures in this section is paid to her, unless it has already done so.
28. We acknowledge the resident’s comments that she is seeking for her share of the costs of works to be wiped clear. We would not order this as the resident remains responsible for her proportion of the costs as a leaseholder. The resident had an opportunity, as part of the section 20 consultations, to comment on the costs or proposed scope of works. The landlord also explained that it sought to keep the costs down as effectively as it could, by adjusting the scope of the works.
29. As the resident and landlord have indicated that works have now been completed to the block, no further orders or recommendations are being made in this regard.
30. In its submissions to this service the landlord explained that its communication was not as good as it could have been. It is positive that the landlord has reflected on this. It has also explained that it has recently launched a new property management system to assist with information sharing across teams and enhance the experience for its customers. As such, no further recommendations are being made for the landlord to consider about its communication.
31. The resident has told us about a more recent issue where a gas engineer told her that when the roof works were completed the flue for the gas fire was removed, and no consideration was given to how this may have impacted the resident’s property. As there is no evidence to show this has completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, we will not comment any further on this matter. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this in the first instance. We recommend the landlord investigates this point as a matter of urgency, to understand what may have happened.

32. The landlord has a buy back policy. It says the landlord may consider buying a property back from its customers in exceptional circumstances or where they may be an obligation under the lease agreement.
33. The resident bought the leasehold of the property and the flat was not her main residence. It was instead used as a buy-to-let property.
34. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, she said she was unable to sell the property or relet it due to its condition. She said she was paying a mortgage for her property which she could not get any rental income from and her tenants had moved out.
35. When the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, it said it would consider buying back the property and took steps to arrange a valuation. It also said it was unable to reimburse the resident for any lost rental income. It was positive the landlord agreed to explore a buy back of the resident’s property, given the condition in the block and the challenges she had faced.
36. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the buy back of the property and how it approached this. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the situation, and consider this as a potential resolution. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the buyback request.
37. We note that, after the stage 2 complaint response, there was a separate disagreement between the resident and landlord about the valuations of the property. As our investigation is limited up to the landlord’s final complaint response, we would not comment any further on this element of the resident’s concerns.
38. In addition, disputes about the valuation of a property would be better handled through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. We would not comment on the valuation of a property or whether the landlord should have paid the resident for any lost rental income. This would also be better suited for a court or an insurance provider to establish.

39. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
40. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2023. The landlord responded within 9 working days, which met the timescales set out in its policy. It was appropriate that the landlord responded within the required timeframe.
41. However, there were significant delays at stage 2. The evidence shows that the resident expressed further dissatisfaction following the stage 1 response on 28 December 2023. The landlord did not recognise this as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at the time.
42. The landlord formally escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 July 2024, approximately 7 months after the resident had made clear her ongoing dissatisfaction. This delay was a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling.
43. The delay meant the resident had to continue pursuing a response, which was likely frustrating. It also delayed her ability to refer the matter to this service.
44. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay. It explained that the stage 1 complaint had been closed in error and apologised for not meeting the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It offered the resident £250 in recognition of these failures.
45. While delays of this nature can be frustrating, the landlord’s offer of £250 was reasonable. Our remedies guidance states that compensation in the range of £100 to £600 may be appropriate where a failure has occurred but there is no lasting impact on the resident.
46. We are satisfied that the landlord’s offer of redress, made before this investigation, appropriately addresses the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling.
47. As previously mentioned, we recommend the landlord pays the resident this £250, unless it has already done so.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping), and communication

48. Although the landlord’s records were clear enough for us to investigate, it did explain that some earlier communications were missing. The landlord has explained that it has recently introduced a new system to help improve its record keeping and communications between its internal teams.
49. The landlord reflected on its communication and accepted that it was reactive instead of proactive. We agree with the landlord’s assessment of this. It is positive the landlord has taken steps (through the new system) to enhance its communication with its customers.