Sanctuary Housing Association (202401966)

Decision
Case ID	202401966
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	30 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled her reports that the property was in poor condition when letting it to her. She said the walls and skirting boards needed repair, and the previous tenant had left items in the loft.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of the property when let.
   2. Associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the condition of the property when let.
   2. Service failure in the landlords handling of the associated complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Reports about the condition of the property when let

4. The landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised. It took reasonable corrective action and offered proportionate compensation.

Associated complaint

5. While the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and offered compensation, it failed to address all the points raised by the resident in its complaint responses.

 

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 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 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £300 it offered in its final complaint response for poor complaint handling (if not already paid). 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 April 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 £550 as agreed in the final complaint response.  Complete any outstanding repairs, painting and decorating it offered in its final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about the condition of the property when let is made on the basis that the above are completed.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 August 2023	The resident told the landlord the property was not in an acceptable condition when she moved in. She said she had to accept the property because she had to leave her temporary accommodation or find alternative housing in the private sector. She said it was unfair that she was forced into this position and both she and her brother were discriminated against because of their disabilities.   The resident explained she could not decorate the property because repairs were needed to the walls and skirting boards. She said although the landlord provided a paint pack, her health conditions prevented her from carrying out the decorating herself. She said she would need to hire a decorator but this was unaffordable. She added that the previous tenant left items in the loft. She said she would need to move out while any decoration work was completed and the situation had affected her health and work.
10 August 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
1 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident was unhappy with the property condition and had raised concerns when she viewed it before moving in. It said it provided a paint pack for her to decorate, reinstated the ceiling coving and the boxing around exposed pipes. It noted her health issues, which prevented her from completing the decorating herself. It acknowledged that she felt the works would be too disruptive for her brother and could not stay in the property while they were completed. It said the items left in the loft should have been removed on 25 August 2023.   The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience and offered £250 compensation comprising: £200 to hire a decorator £50 for delays in its complaint handling
8 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the property condition was appalling and the landlord should decorate it for her. She said the compensation offered was unacceptable because she had received quotes for the work exceeding £750.
15 December 2023	The resident made a new complaint, and the landlord acknowledged it. It noted it had incorrectly recorded it as a new complaint. It said it would investigate further and advised that a home visit would help it understand why she remained dissatisfied.
8 March 2024	The landlord said it completed a home visit on 7 February 2024 and was waiting for the resident to provide quotes. It explained it had attempted to contact her but had been unsuccessful. Therefore, it could not revise the compensation offer. It said if she remained dissatisfied, she could escalate the complaint to stage 2.
4 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint.
9 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
3 May 2024	The landlord informed the resident it would not meet its 20 working day target and would contact her again in 10 working days.
12 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It repeated its initial position and apologised that the resident remained unhappy.   The landlord said it completed plastering works on 21 August 2023 and raised further work to deep‑fill the cracks and mould‑wash the skirting boards. It completed the remaining plastering on 13 October 2023 and finished the skirting work on 17 January 2024 after several instances of no access. It said the items in the loft were cleared on 25 August 2023. It acknowledged these works were not initially completed to a good standard. It also said that decorating was her responsibility, so it could not provide the full amount she was seeking to cover costs.   The landlord also reviewed its complaint handling failings and apologised for the delays and inconvenience. It increased the compensation to a total of £1,250. This comprised: £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience £250 for complaint handling £750 as a goodwill gesture for decorating
Between 29 July and 12 September 2024	Following the landlord’s final response the resident stated the decorating costs would exceed £2,000. She also reported that the cracks in the bedroom had returned and skirting boards needed a mould wash. She repeated that it had not taken her disabilities into account.   The landlord provided an update and revised its offer. It advised on the outstanding works and said that it would complete the decorating. It revised its compensation offer to £850 as it was now completing the decoration work. It comprised: £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience £300 for complaint handling £250 goodwill gesture towards decoration.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. She said she wants the repairs, painting, and decoration completed. She also wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

 

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	Reports about the condition of the property when let
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

6. The resident raised concerns about the affect on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any ill health caused. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any ill health and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

7. The resident viewed the property and highlighted her repair concerns before accepting it and before the tenancy began on 20 July 2023. The landlord said it completed its void checks on 5 July 2023, including electrical checks, cleaning, and a rubbish removal. It confirmed the property met its lettable standard. However, it did not record any issues relating to walls, plastering, or skirting boards. As repairs were required just 2 weeks after she moved in, this suggests its void checks were not sufficient or its records were inaccurate.
8. The resident again reported concerns about the property condition, and the landlord provided a voucher for a paint pack on 3 August 2023. This aligned with the information on its website under the “Getting started in your new home” section. It states it will provide a paint pack if it agrees the home needs decorating. However, it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and her ability to do this herself. We note, however, that it did provide support in relation to accessing furniture. The same guidance states that walls and skirting boards will be in good condition. It also says the property will be clear of rubbish and ready to decorate. This again suggests that it failed to complete appropriate void checks prior to letting the property.
9. Furthermore, the landlord’s records show contradictory evidence between staff. The Housing Officer disagreed with the Voids Supervisor’s view that “the property condition was let in a manner in which the walls were ready to decorate.”
10. The landlord offered £200 in its stage 1 complaint response for the resident to hire a decorator. She said she had a quote for the works and the compensation would not cover the cost. It said it would consider the quote if she provided it, but we have seen no evidence that she did so. It later increased its compensation offer to £750 at stage 2 but later reduced this to £250 after agreeing to complete the internal decoration itself. These actions were positive and demonstrated a more tailored approach. However, it delayed in offering these options and could have considered them at an earlier stage.
11. The landlord’s voids, allocations, and lettings policy states staff are responsible for identifying an applicant’s support needs before making any offer of accommodation. It is not clear this was completed, as it had no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities. That said, it has since instructed the housing team to complete a resident profile to record vulnerabilities. It has also introduced a vulnerable customers policy. This demonstrates it learnt from the complaint, which is in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. While there were additional works required following the landlord’s void checks and the resident moving in. It also raised works to repair the plaster on the walls and the skirting boards. It also raised an order to remove the items in the loft. It responded to these repairs within its policy timescale of 28 days. The contractor identified additional work to address the cracks and reported the skirting boards required a mould wash. While its policy aims to complete repairs in one visit where possible, it was reasonable for it to raise further works when needed.
13. Given further work were required soon after the resident moved in, it is not clear that the property was in an appropriate condition. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to complete the decoration herself while repair work was still outstanding. The landlord should have completed these works during its void process before letting the property. It is also unclear whether it has carried out the internal painting it offered in its final complaint response.
14. In summary, the landlord attended to complete the repairs, including the additional works it identified, and stated that all repairs have been completed. It offered £550 compensation to recognise the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. This along with its offer to redecorate was reasonable redress in recognition of its failings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

15. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. While its timescales did not align with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time, it has since revised its policy which is now Code compliant.
16. The landlord’s policy said it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It said it would provide its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
17. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales, but its response was delayed by 6 working days. It offered £50 to recognise this delay which was reasonable at the time.
18. The landlord did not correctly record the resident’s escalation request. Although it acknowledged the request within the required timeframe, it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 appropriately. This caused a delay in progressing the complaint.
19. The landlord requested an extension to issue its stage 2 response in line with its policy. However, the resident had to chase for an update because it missed the revised deadline. It apologised for the delays and increased its offer to £300 to recognise its poor complaint handling. This was proportionate to the delay and fell within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
20. The landlord did not respond to all the points the resident raised in her complaint. She raised concerns about how the property was allocated to her and also that it had treated her unfairly due to her disabilities. We note that it advised her it could not consider how she was treated during her homeless application via email and that she should raise this with the council. However, this was not included within its complaint response. Additionally, it did not respond to her concerns about discrimination. As she raised these issues as part of her complaint, it should have addressed all points formally and clearly explained its position on the matters.
21. In summary, the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling, apologised and offered appropriate compensation. It later advised that it had implemented a training programme for its complaint handlers demonstrating that it learnt from the complaint.
22. That said, as it failed to formally address all points raised by the resident, we have made a failure finding. As the revised compensation offer was reasonable, we have not ordered any additional compensation.

 

Learning

Complaint handling

23. The landlord should ensure it accurately records complaints and escalation requests.
24. The landlord should respond to all points raised in the complaint. If it cannot consider an issue, it should clearly explain its position and direct the resident appropriately within its formal response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord should document any vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity to ensure the necessary support can be provided.

Communication

26. Communication with the resident was limited. Although the landlord advised of challenges in contacting her, it did not provide evidence of this. It should ensure it records and documents all contact with residents to demonstrate both attempted and successful contact.