Sanctuary Housing Association (202411628)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202411628

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Sanctuary Housing Association

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

28 November 2025

Background

  1. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident has lived there since 2015. The landlord has advised us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her family. The resident complained to the landlord about a leak from the roof and chimney, which she said had affected her property for a number of years. She reported that the leak had caused damp and mould in her son’s attic bedroom. She asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response due to the delays in carrying out the repairs to the roof and the chimney.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak causing damp and mould in one of the bedrooms.
    2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing damp and mould in one of the bedrooms.
  2. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. There were delays in the landlord raising orders to repair the roof and the contractor carrying out the works. The repairs carried out to the roof were ineffective as the resident reported further leaks. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. Although the landlord offered reasonable compensation, the repairs took longer than expected to complete.
  2. There were delays in the landlord logging and responding to the resident’s complaints at both stages of the process. However, the landlord offered reasonable compensation to put things right.

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

07 January 2026

2

Other order

The landlord must consider paying additional compensation to the resident for the period from 1 September 2024 until the date all of the roof works and the resulting internal works were completed and write to the resident with its decision.

No later than

07 January 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

2 January 2024

The resident made a stage 1 complaint because she said there had been more than 5 roof leaks and although repairs had been carried out, the problem had not been resolved. She said that the landlord had raised a works order in October 2023 but this had not yet been approved.

26 February 2024

The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said:

  • It had given an order to a roofing contractor to carry out works to the roof and chimney but said there had been delays in approving the contractor’s quote.
  • It had now approved the quote.
  • There had also been delays because of the need for an asbestos survey of the roof before works could proceed.
  • The plan was to erect scaffolding on 13 March 2024 to carry out the asbestos survey.
  • The landlord upheld the complaint because of the delays in repairing the roof and chimney and offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill.

27 February 2024

The resident contacted the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response as she said the landlord’s offer of £150 was too low.

9 July 2024

The landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it said:

  • Its records showed that the resident had been reporting roof leaks into her son’s bedroom since November 2017 and although there had been numerous inspections, the issue had not been resolved.
  • Although leaks can be difficult to trace, it said it should have identified the source of the leak during one of the previous inspections.
  • The stage 1 response did not meet the landlord’s quality standards as it contained inaccuracies and errors.
  • It upheld the complaint, apologised and offered a gesture of goodwill of £1,870. It said half of this sum would be paid directly to the resident and half would be paid into the resident’s rent account to offset rent arrears.

7 August 2024

The resident contacted us to request an investigation into her complaint as she said the roof repairs had still not been carried out.

February 2025

The landlord’s records state that the roof works had been completed and the roof was watertight.

May 2025

The landlord’s records state that the internal works, including plastering and decorating, were completed.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak causing damp and mould in one of the bedrooms

Finding

Service failure
  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The exterior is the outside of the building, including the roof.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that all non-emergency repairs are ‘appointed repairs’ and gives a roof leak as an example of an appointed repair. The procedure says that the landlord aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 days.
  3. During the complaints process, the resident told the landlord that the roof had been leaking for 7 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the events from June 2023, when the resident reported a roof leak, until the date of its final complaint response.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported issues with the roof after the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
  5. Following contact from the resident, the landlord raised an order on 20 June 2023 for a roofing contractor to inspect the roof. The landlord’s surveyor confirmed there was water ingress into the attic bedroom. The landlord’s records show that the roofing contractor carried out the inspection on 12 September 2023, provided a quote and on 24 October 2023 the landlord raised an order to carry out the repairs to the roof/chimney. It therefore took the landlord 4 months from the date it requested the roof inspection to the date it raised the order for the roof repairs.
  6. Whilst we understand that the landlord was reliant on its contractor to do the inspection and provide the quote, we still consider the delay to have been inappropriate. The landlord’s surveyor had confirmed that there was water ingress into the attic bedroom and the resident had chased the landlord on 15 August 2023 as she was concerned about the delay.
  7. The order for the roof works was raised on 24 October 2023 with a 60-day target to complete the works. This was reasonable given that the contractor had to obtain a permit from the local council to erect scaffolding. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident to confirm it had raised the order. The landlord’s lack of communication was unreasonable as the resident had contacted the landlord in August 2023 requesting an update.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 2 and 5 January 2024. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged a start date and advised the resident of the date at this point as it had been 50 working days since it had raised the order in October 2023. It also again demonstrated a lack of communication on the landlord’s part, which was unreasonable. The lack of progress prompted the resident to make a stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2024 in which she described the distress she and her son were experiencing as a result of the delay. She said her son’s bedroom was wet, the decorations had been ruined and the mould on the walls was making her son ill.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 January 2024 to request an update regarding the roof works. The landlord advised the resident that an asbestos survey was needed before the roof works could progress. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not told the resident earlier about the need for an asbestos survey. Again, this showed a lack of communication by the landlord.
  10. The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 21 February 2024 as she understood the scaffolding was due to be erected on that day. However, she was told that the contractor had cancelled the scaffolding at her request. She disputed this and denied asking the contractor to cancel the scaffolding.
  11. In situations where there are conflicting accounts of events and there is insufficient evidence to confirm what was said, it would not be possible for us, as an independent arbiter, to decide which account was accurate. Therefore, we have not made a finding on this matter.
  12. The landlord’s records show that roof works were carried out on 18 March 2024, which was almost 5 months after it had raised the order to carry out the works and 9 months after a surveyor had confirmed there was water ingress affecting the attic bedroom. Even taking into account the need for the landlord to test the roof for asbestos and obtain permits for scaffolding, we consider the delay in carrying out the work was inappropriate. The resident had advised the landlord of the impact the reported leak was having on her and her son and therefore the matter should have been addressed with greater urgency.
  13. On 5 April 2024, the local council’s environmental health team contacted the landlord to say the resident had notified them about a hole in the roof which was allowing water ingress. The resident then phoned the landlord on 12 April 2024 to report that the roof was still leaking.
  14. Although we understand that it can be difficult to trace and resolve roof leaks, given the past history of reported leaks at the property, we would expect the landlord to have taken additional measures to check whether any repairs carried out had resolved the leak. Therefore, in our view it was unreasonable that following the repairs in March 2024, there were further reports of a leak affecting the same bedroom. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response when it said that it should have located the source of the leak during one of the previous inspections.
  15. A surveyor carried out an inspection on 7 May 2024 and said the bedroom walls were still wet and there was evidence of rainwater. He confirmed that he would recall the contractor who had recently carried out roofing works. It is unclear why it had taken over a month for the surveyor to inspect the property after the local council had reported the leak and the resident had followed this up on 12 April 2024 by reporting the leak. This delay was unreasonable given the issues with the roof that the resident had already experienced.
  16. In its stage 2 reply dated 9 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that during May and June 2024 the resident phoned on various occasions to request updates. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 June 2024 and 9 July 2024 to provide updates. However, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that additional works were needed to the roof and the works were awaiting authorisation. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not yet approved the remedial works to the roof 3 months after the local council and the resident had advised the landlord in early April 2024 that the roof was still leaking. The leak caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident as demonstrated by the number of times she contacted the landlord for updates.
  17. In summary, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak:
    1. There was a period of 4 months between the landlord raising an order for a contractor to inspect the roof and the date the landlord raised the order for the roof repairs.
    2. The landlord did not communicate adequately with the resident about the roof repairs after it raised the order in October 2023.
    3. There was a further delay of 5 months between the landlord raising the order and the contractor carrying out works to the roof in March 2024.
    4. The evidence indicates that the works carried out in March 2024 were ineffective as the resident reported a leak shortly afterwards.
    5. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply, it had still not approved additional works to the roof, despite the resident advising the landlord 3 months earlier that the roof was again leaking.
    6. The resident contacted the landlord for updates several times during the period we have investigated. The evidence therefore shows there was an overall lack of communication by the landlord regarding the roof repairs.
  18. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
  19. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in responding to the resident’s reports of roof leaks. It acknowledged that it should have identified and addressed the leak sooner and apologised for this. It then sought to put things right by offering compensation. It offered a total of £1,870, of which £1,620 was for its response to the reported roof leaks and £250 was for its complaint handling. The compensation for complaint handling is considered below under the landlord’s complaint handling.
  20. In terms of the £1,620 compensation for the reported roof leaks, the landlord’s records show that it had calculated the figure as follows:
    1. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
    2. £810 for the delay in repairing the roof based on 10% of the rent for the period from 7 March 2023 to 31 August 2024, which was when the repairs were expected to be completed.
    3. £410 to reimburse the resident for damage to possessions.
  21. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may offer a maximum of £400 to recognise the level of time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by a resident as a result of service failure. In this case, we agree that the resident did experience a significant level of time, trouble and inconvenience in chasing the landlord for updates and in having to provide access for the various inspections and contractor visits. Therefore, in our view it was appropriate for the landlord to award the maximum compensation allowed by its policy.
  22. The policy also says that it may offer compensation by refunding a percentage of the rent to reflect that a room is unusable or partly unusable as a result of a service failure. In this case, the landlord offered 10%, which we consider was fair given the impact of the leak on the attic bedroom. Finally, the compensation policy says that it can consider offering compensation for damage to belongings due to the landlord’s action or inaction. As the resident had reported damage to belongings as a result of the roof leak, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for these.
  23. Based on our assessment, we have concluded that the landlord made a fair and reasonable offer of compensation to put things right at the point of issuing its stage 2 response. However, the compensation was calculated up to 31 August 2024 when the landlord expected to have completed the repairs, whereas the evidence shows that the final repairs to the roof and to address the internal damage were not completed until 2025. We have therefore made a finding of service failure as the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the detriment experienced by the resident after 31 August 2024. We have ordered the landlord to consider paying additional compensation to the resident from September 2024 until the time it had completed all of the remedial works.

Complaint

The landlord’s response to the associated complaints

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The policy that was in operation prior to March 2024 stated that residents could ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage 2 if they remain unhappy with the response at stage 1. However, residents will be asked to explain what they remain unhappy with, and what outcome they would like.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 January 2024, which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 February 2024, which was 37 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had written to the resident on 12 January 2024 to say it was unable to respond fully to the complaint at that stage. However, the overall time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint was still inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy. The delay in the response resulted in the resident spending additional time and effort chasing the landlord about the complaint. For example, she contacted the landlord on 21 and 22 February 2024 to ask for an update.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2024 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 reply and its gesture of goodwill. The landlord did not log this as a stage 2 complaint, which was inappropriate. Our Complaint Handling Code in operation at the time said: “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”. The landlord unsuccessfully tried to ring the resident on 11 March 2024 and then wrote to her on the same day to say it could not reassess her complaint because she had not provided any new evidence. The need to provide new evidence is not a reason given in our code for not escalating a complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s advice that it could not escalate the complaint was inappropriate.
  6. After receiving an email from the resident on 12 March 2024 saying she was unhappy with the stage 1 response, the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 20 March 2024 to confirm it had escalated the complaint. The landlord then sent its stage 2 response on 9 July 2024, which was 76 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. Although the landlord had written to the resident on 11 April 2024, the time taken by the landlord to send its final response was inappropriate as it was significantly longer than the target timescale in its policy. The result was that the resident spent additional time and effort chasing the landlord for a reply to her complaint. For example, she contacted the landlord on 22 May 2024, 20 June 2024 and 3 July 2024.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures at both stages of the process. It apologised for these and offered compensation of £250. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may award up to £250 for poor complaint handling. Given the complaint handling failures we have found, we agree that it was appropriate for the landlord to award the maximum amount allowed in its policy. We have therefore concluded that the landlord made a fair and reasonable offer of compensation to put things right in relation to its poor complaint handling and we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord should have systems in place for monitoring jobs that have not been progressed by contractors within a reasonable timescale. This is particularly important for complex repairs, such as those involving scaffolding and the need for permits from the local council.

Communication

  1. The landlord should ensure it provides feedback to residents after it has carried out an inspection so the resident is aware of the next steps, including timescales for completing the repairs.