Sanctuary Housing Association (202347034)

Decision
Case ID	202347034
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 December 2025

Background

The resident complained about a leak that damaged some of the kitchen cupboard doors and she wanted these replaced. She was unhappy how the landlord handled the repairs and her complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of kitchen repairs.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Kitchen repairs

The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and offered proportionate compensation. It also completed the repairs raised within the complaint.

Associated complaint

The landlord failed to escalate the complaint within a reasonable time and gave inaccurate information. While it acknowledged some failings, it was not reflective of the delays the resident experienced or the missed opportunities to resolve the issue.

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 29 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. 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 29 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

29 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.

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

29 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the increased offer of £250 as agreed following the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlords handling of kitchen repairs is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 October 2023	The resident complained after the landlord attempted repairs. She said its contractor attended to fix the water-damaged kitchen units but failed to repair the issues. The contractor told her to contact the landlord again to report the repairs.
19 October 2023	The contractor issued a stage 1 complaint response on behalf of the landlord. It said the complaint arose because she received poor service with the repair. It apologised that the level of service did not meet her expectations. It stated that the kitchen units were not scheduled for replacement until 2029 but offered to replace the doors and hinges. It confirmed an appointment for 24 October 2023 and said it would monitor the progress.
Between November 2023 and January 2024	Between November 2023 and January 2024, the contractor attended but did not complete repairs, prompting the resident to report outstanding issues. She understood that the stage 1 response said the kitchen unit doors would be replaced. However, the works order was to replace broken hinges. She requested a joint inspection which confirmed minimal water damage likely caused by a non-standard tap and found units in good condition, requiring only hinge repairs. The resident refused hinge repairs, insisting on full door replacement. The landlord explained its policy was to repair first and replace when necessary. After discussions, it agreed to replace 3 misaligned doors and a damaged drawer front, confirming the units and kitchen did not require replacement.
2 February 2024	The resident said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response multiple times and escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said she was unhappy with the ongoing delay and the landlord’s lack of communication. She confirmed the contractor had replaced the hinges but questioned why the landlord could not replace all the kitchen cupboard doors to match.
4 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said the complaint concerned kitchen repairs, meaning new cupboard doors would not match the existing ones. It noted the resident was unhappy with communication around the complaint and the time taken to escalate it. It acknowledged that deciding what repairs were necessary took longer than expected and there had been a lot of back and forth between the landlord and the contractor. It explained that delays were also due to a high volume of maintenance issues and apologised. The landlord stated that its surveyor concluded most doors and drawer fronts needed replacing due to water damage and general wear. It added that although it would not usually replace undamaged doors, it would include a few additional doors in the schedule of works. It acknowledged delays in services and responses, committed to learning from these, and offered £50 compensation.
7 March 2024	The resident responded to the landlord and said the compensation offered was insufficient for the time lost and the poor service she received. She explained that she took multiple days off work, felt mistreated by the complaints team, and believed contractor staff were unprofessional and negligent. She added that the delay in resolving these issues since October 2023 had affected her wellbeing. The landlord stated it did not compensate for loss of earnings.
21 March 2024	The contractor completed the repairs, with the exception of the extractor hood cover, which was out of stock. It scheduled a follow-up appointment to complete the remaining work which has been confirmed as completed.
26 June 2024	The landlord considered the further delays which occurred and increased its compensation offer to £250.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us as she was unhappy with how the landlord handled the kitchen repairs and her associated complaint. She wants a clear response and for it to take accountability.

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 handling of kitchen repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

The resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her health. While the Ombudsman empathises, health-related claims are best addressed by the courts, where independent medical experts and oral testimony can be properly considered. We can consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience in line with our remedies guidance.
The resident raised further concerns after the landlord’s final response about its complaints team and contractor staff. As this was not part of the original complaint, and the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this we have not considered this further. She may wish to raise a new complaint about these concerns.

What we have considered

It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen repairs. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident complained about the kitchen repairs in October 2023. While the landlord attended, she said the works were not completed and it was unclear what had been authorised. She was initially told in the stage 1 response that it would replace the kitchen cupboard doors and hinges. However, the contractor advised this had not been raised as a work order. A later inspection revealed minimal damage to the kitchen units and cupboard doors. It authorised hinge replacements only. This likely caused frustration for the resident given it had previously stated it would replace the doors. The remedy offered must clearly set out what will happen and by when and any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
The landlord and contractor exchanged extensive communication to establish which repairs to complete. This process delayed the works unreasonably, taking almost 5 months to complete. This approach did not comply with its repairs policy, which requires repairs to be carried out to a good standard, within a set timescale, and aims to complete same-day repairs. The policy states that routine repairs must be completed within 45 calendar days. It did not complete repairs within this timeframe and gave conflicting information.
The landlord did not properly communicate with the resident and multiple visits occurred without any work being completed. Although the resident may have delayed some works, she did so because the expectations were unclear. The landlord did not properly communicate what repairs were to be completed having changed its decision from its earlier response. Outstanding repairs must be tracked and completed promptly, with clear updates provided to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response confirmed that although it would not normally replace undamaged cupboard doors, it would replace the remaining doors to ensure they matched as per the resident’s request. While it had no obligation to do so, this was a positive step to put things right and resolve the matter. It offered £50 to reflect the delays and poor communication but did not specify whether this related to the repair or complaint delays. We have made a reasonable assumption that this related to repair delays. While it did not provide a specific date, it gave a timeframe to complete the remaining repairs.
Following the landlord’s final response there were some further delays in completing the cooker hood cover. On 26 June 2024, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £250 to acknowledge the time taken to reach a resolution and the impact on the resident’s mental health. Its acknowledgement of the further delay, apology and revised compensation offer was reasonable redress to recognise these failings. Its offer is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord provided its stage 1 response within its policy timeframe but did not provide evidence that it sent an acknowledgment. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint, but its response was slightly delayed. However, it delayed escalating the complaint. The resident said on multiple occasions that she was unhappy with its initial response. It missed the opportunity to address her concerns sooner, which caused unnecessary time and trouble. It failed to apologise for the delays or offer any redress.
The landlord’s stage 1 response raised the resident’s expectations in that it would replace her kitchen cupboard doors and hinges. It later confirmed this would not be in line with its policy. It failed to clearly explain the change, and poor communication led to confusion and unclear expectations. It could have acted sooner to address this directly with the resident and demonstrate its commitment to resolving the matter.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that where it commits to offering a remedy in its complaint responses, that it follows through with the identified actions.
The landlord should consider how it sets out any compensation offered and how it explains which complaint point it is attributed to. This will improve clarity and understanding.

Communication

Overall, the landlord communicated poorly. Effective communication reassures residents that the landlord is considering and addressing their concerns. It also helps residents understand what repairs are possible, prevents multiple visits, and reduces the time they need to take off work for repair appointments.