Sanctuary Housing Association (202411014)

Decision
Case ID	202411014
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about disruptive behaviour from his neighbour, and about the poor level of service he felt the landlord was providing. Both the resident’s and neighbour’s flats were part of a supported living facility. The landlord apologised and explained the steps it had taken to address the neighbour’s behaviour and to support the resident. It offered £1752 in compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
   1. The resident’s reports about a neighbour’s behaviour, and the landlord’s level of service.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s behaviour, and the landlord’s level of service.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s behaviour, and the landlord’s level of service

4. The landlord engaged with the resident, the neighbour and other relevant agencies when trying to address the issue, and followed its policies when responding to the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord’s complaint response at stage 2 was delayed. It acknowledged this and offered reasonable compensation to the resident.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

While we have found no failings in the landlord’s actions regarding the resident’s reports about his neighbour’s behaviour, we recommend that it reoffer to the resident the compensation it offered in its final complaint response (unless that has already been paid). The landlord should also reoffer the £250 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failings. Our reasonable redress finding for that issue is partly based on it doing so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 February 2023	The resident contacted the landlord and said he wanted a refund of “peace of mind” service charges he had been paying as part of his tenancy, because his quality of life had been significantly impacted by his neighbour’s behaviour.
7 March 2023	The landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour, particularly around the neighbour knocking on his door, ringing his bell, and entering his flat. Following the meeting, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint.
12 March 2023	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and said it aimed to respond within 10 working days.
26 March 2023	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the resident had reported incidents about the neighbour’s behaviour over several years, and said it had taken a number of actions to address it. The landlord explained the “peace of mind” charge and said it had fulfilled the provision set out in resident’s tenancy agreement. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced distress and frustration because of his neighbour’s behaviour, and apologised for not considering offering the resident the opportunity to move earlier in the process. (It had raised this as a possible solution when meeting with the resident on 7 March 2023.)
11 April 2024	The resident escalated his complaint and said he wanted £5000 in compensation. He said that over several years the landlord had done nothing to address the issue, and that he had not been able to live a normal life.
12 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said it would respond within 20 working days.
12 April 2024	The resident viewed a different flat with a view to a possible move but decided it was unsuitable for his needs.
10 May 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident and said it was not in a position to respond at stage 2 within 20 working days and would contact him again within 10 working days.
Between 10 May 2024 and 2 June 2024	The resident continued to email the landlord, chasing a response to his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the emails. On 1 June 2024, the landlord apologised for the further delay and said it aimed to contact him again by 12 June 2024.
7 June 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response after speaking with the resident. It outlined the background and the actions taken to address the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord acknowledged some failures in its complaint handling, including an initial failure to register the complaint correctly, delays in responding, and poor communication. It offered £1752.68 in compensation, primarily for the resident’s loss of enjoyment to live peacefully in his home.
Between 7 June 2024 and 2 July 2024	The resident declined the compensation and corresponded further with the landlord. The landlord clarified how the compensation had been calculated. On 2 July 2024, the landlord said the internal complaint process had been fully exhausted and it would not enter into further correspondence.
Between August 2024 and December 2025	The neighbour died in August 2024. The resident moved out of his property in December 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us explaining that he was unhappy about the “peace of mind” service charges, but that his main complaint was what he considered a lack of response by the landlord to his neighbour’s behaviour. He said he wanted £6000 in compensation.

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 the resident’s reports about a neighbour’s behaviour, and the landlord’s level of service
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told the landlord and us that he had reported the neighbour’s behaviour as far back as 2017. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The formal complaint was raised on 7 March 2023. For this reason, our investigation centres on the events in the months leading up to the complaint.

What we have investigated

7. The resident complained that the landlord had done nothing to address his reports about his neighbour’s behaviour. The evidence shows that in late 2023 and early 2024, he made numerous reports to the landlord about the neighbour’s behaviour. It is clear from the nature of the behaviour and the information in the reports that it had a detrimental effect on the resident. During the same period, there is evidence that the landlord engaged with outside agencies and conducted a review of the neighbour’s care plan. The landlord told social workers that it could not meet the neighbour’s needs and that he would be better placed in a more appropriate setting, but there were several factors outside the landlord’s control which meant moving was not a practical option.
8. During a meeting with the resident on 7 March 2024, the landlord discussed the actions it had taken to try and address the neighbour’s behaviour. It also told the resident, in general terms, the actions it would follow should a tenant have additional needs that could not be managed by the accommodation. The landlord asked the resident to keep his door locked to stop the neighbour from accessing his flat, and to continue to use the call cord for any incidents.
9. As part of the same meeting, the landlord offered to provide staff to sit with the resident’s wife when he went out, but he declined this offer. It also discussed the possibility of the resident moving to another flat. He subsequently viewed an alternative flat but decided it was unsuitable.
10. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaints process were detailed, providing information about the measures taken including the involvement of the police, adult safeguarding and adult social care teams. It also explained that it was unable to simply terminate the neighbour’s tenancy without following a process. The landlord said it had always investigated the resident’s reports, and the evidence provided supports that.
11. It is evident from the information provided that the situation was complex, difficult and sensitive. The resident was adversely affected by the neighbour’s behaviour, and this was acknowledged by the landlord. However, this was not a typical antisocial behaviour situation, as the evidence shows the neighbour had a range of health issues which affected his behaviour, rather than it being deliberate. The landlord had to balance the needs of both residents, and the neighbour’s circumstances limited the formal action it could take. The evidence shows the landlord handled the situation appropriately and sensitively, and in line with basic good practice for managing behaviour. It eventually issued the neighbour with a warning letter for a breach of the tenancy agreement, an action it described as a last resort.
12. That the neighbour’s behaviour continued to cause disruption and upset to the resident’s life is not disputed. However, the complaint that this was due to the landlord’s inaction is not supported by the evidence.
13. The resident complained, both to the landlord and to us, about “peace of mind” charges that formed part of his rent and tenancy agreement. He argued that he should not have to pay such charges because his peace of mind had been affected by his neighbour. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that this service charge related to specific provisions of the supported living facility, such as an on-site care and support team and an emergency call system. The landlord said it had fulfilled those support services. The landlord’s explanation matches the tenancy agreement. Nonetheless, if the resident wishes to challenge the charge he should seek legal advice as, ultimately, fixed service charge disputes are more appropriately addressed by the courts.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that in hindsight it could have done more to support the resident by offering alternative accommodation earlier in the process. It offered the resident significant compensation for loss of enjoyment of his home, and for time, trouble and inconvenience. However, as explained above, nothing in the evidence shows failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports or the overall situation. Its consideration that it could possibly have done things differently shows its positive willingness to learn from the complaint, and was good complaint handling.

Complaint	The complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response times were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint after 3 working days and responded 10 working days later. This was in line with its policy and the Code. At stage 2, the landlord responded 38 days after acknowledging the complaint. This was outside the 20 working days required by its policy and the Code. It contacted the resident on 10 May 2024, saying it was not in a position to respond, and then did the same on 1 June 2024. It did not provide a reason for the delay on either occasion. The Code states that the reasons for any delay in responding must be clearly explained to the resident.
17. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint handling and offered £250 compensation to the resident. That was at the very top of the scale recommended in its compensation policy, and was an appropriate remedy for the delay and lack of explanation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping was of an appropriate standard which allowed us to robustly investigate the substantive issue and the complaint handling.

Communication

19. Although there was a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord was generally responsive to his emails. Its written responses were detailed and it also held in-person meetings to discuss issues, which was an important and positive step to take in the circumstances.