Sanctuary Housing Association (202413697)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202413697

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Sanctuary Housing Association

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

19 March 2026

Background

  1. In July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to replace her kitchen. It carried out an inspection during December 2023 and concluded the kitchen did not need to be replaced. The resident ended her tenancy in July 2025.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen.

Reasons

  1. Landlords are usually responsible for maintaining kitchens they have installed. The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement do not specify who was responsible for maintaining the kitchen. However, the landlord did not dispute its repair responsibility in this case.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 7 July 2023 to complete repairs to the kitchen. It recommended that a surveyor attend to assess its condition. The resident declined to give access for an appointment on 30 August 2023. She said this was because she was not aware it was attending. A further appointment was made for 1 November 2023 but the resident asked to reschedule because she’d made an error with the date. The survey subsequently took place on 7 December 2023. The surveyor concluded the kitchen did not need replacing and that no further repairs were necessary. The landlord was entitled to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff. Therefore, its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint of 19 June 2024, the landlord booked an appointment to inspect the kitchen again on 11 September 2024. Also on 19 June 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say the units were falling apart. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 3 July 2024 said it would try to bring the appointment forward. Considering its repairs policy says it will respond to routine repairs within 45 calendar days, this was appropriate.
  4. The resident sent at least 3 emails to the landlord during July 2024 setting out her concerns about the safety of the kitchen units. On 30 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say the appointment had been brought forward to 2 August 2024. On 5 August 2024 the operative who attended said carcasses and worktops were damaged. The landlord suggested asking its planned works team to consider a kitchen replacement. Its response was in line with its 45-calendar-day timescale.
  5. On 15 August 2024 the landlord received an occupational therapist (OT) report recommending adaptations to the kitchen. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 4 September 2024agreed that drawer fronts and unit doors needed to be replaced. It also said that it needed to reinspect the kitchen following the OT’s report. The landlord provided a summary of its response to us on 12 February 2026. It said that prior to the resident requesting an adapted kitchen it had concluded that the kitchen was beyond economical repair. Therefore, its decision to reinspect following the OT report was reasonable.
  6. Our investigations normally focus on events which occurred during the 12 months prior to the complaint (in this case 2023). However, we note that the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s “historical contact” regarding kitchen repairs. It offered £200 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance when a landlord’s failures have had an adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, while the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement could reasonably have been improved, it recognised the impact on her and took proportionate steps 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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

Our reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £200 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so.