Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Sanctuary Housing Association (202421125)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421125

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 October 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s communication about insurance and an excess fee.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since September 2006. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is the head leaseholder, and the developer is the freeholder. The freeholder arranged insurance for the block.
  2. The resident reported a leak that damaged her bathroom. Following an investigation, the landlord found the leak was coming from a pipe in the flat above. The landlord arranged to do repairs.
  3. On 5 October 2023 the landlord contacted the freeholder and said the resident wanted to make an insurance claim.
  4. The freeholder told the resident on 20 December 2023 that its insurance company had approved an estimate for work. It said if the resident used her preferred contractor, the amount paid would be £1,000. The resident sent invoices totalling £1,134 to the landlord and freeholder on 8 February 2024.
  5. On 20 February 2024 the landlord told the resident the insurance would pay £364, which was the amount claimed less £750 excess. The resident responded and said there should not be an excess as the leak was from a building fault.
  6. The resident complained on 11 March 2024 about the landlord’s communication about the excess fee. She wanted it to reimburse the £750.
  7. In its complaint response on 10 March 2024, the landlord said it did not arrange the insurance. It said it had sent her a copy of the policy on 22 February 2024, which showed an excess fee of £750. It said as the resident had claimed before, she should be aware of the excess. It apologised for its communication and offered £25 compensation.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2024. She said the insurance policy the landlord sent did not say who was liable for the excess. She said she had leaks before from the flat above and the freeholder had covered the costs. She asked why the landlord had not told her about changes to the terms and conditions of the insurance.
  9. In its final response on 11 July 2024 the landlord said it did not set the insurance conditions. It said the resident needed to contact the freeholder about this. It said its responsibility was only to help residents log a claim. As a “gesture of goodwill”, it increased its offer of compensation to £50.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she should not have to pay the excess, and it should come from the service charge. She said the landlord’s communication had been poor. She wanted reimbursement, and clarification on roles and responsibilities of the freeholder and landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her complaint the resident referred to communications from the freeholder. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman can only investigate actions or omissions of the landlord. Because of this, the Ombudsman will not investigate the freeholder’s communications but may refer to them for context. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord behaved reasonably when dealing with the insurance claim.

The landlord’s communication about insurance and an excess fee

  1. The landlord has given the Ombudsman a copy of its lease agreement with the freeholder and a copy of its sub-lease agreement with the resident. The sub-lease agreement says the landlord will enforce the covenants for repair and insurance under the agreement with the freeholder.
  2. The lease agreement between the landlord and freeholder says the freeholder will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the block. It says the freeholder will recover from the landlord the amount of loss for any damage caused through negligence by the landlord or any other person.
  3. On insurance, the lease agreement between the landlord and freeholder says the freeholder will insure the block against loss or damage, in the name of the freeholder and landlord.
  4. The sub-lease with the resident says the landlord is not liable for damage caused to the resident through defects in any pipe or for any damage to their home. It says it will keep the block insured for any loss or damage.
  5. The property owner’s insurance policy says the insurer will cover the resident for damage to the property. The insurance schedule, issued to the freeholder on 11 August 2023, says there is a £750 excess where there is a claim related to damage due to “escape of water”. The property owner’s insurance policy says the excess will be deducted as specified in the schedule.
  6. After a leak damaged the resident’s bathroom, the landlord contacted the freeholder on 5 October 2023. It asked it to log an insurance claim for costs the resident had incurred to trace the leak. It told the freeholder the resident was happy to deal with it directly.
  7. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord arranged to fix a leak that came from the property above the resident’s. Based on the lease agreement with the freeholder, it is unclear why the landlord did the repairs as this appears to be the responsibility of the freeholder.
  8. The resident told the landlord on 6 November 2023 she wanted to claim for damage caused by the leak. The landlord said it did not insure the property, and she needed to add this to her claim with the freeholder.
  9. The freeholder told the resident on 20 December 2023 that its insurance company had approved an estimate of £1,000. It said the resident could use her preferred company, but the settlement would be £1,000. The freeholder copied the landlord into this email. It is the Ombudsman’s view that from this, the resident would reasonably have expected the payment to be £1,000.
  10. The resident sent invoices totalling £1,114 to the landlord and freeholder on 30 January 2024. On 8 February 2024, the insurance company told the landlord and freeholder that the resident had asked for an update. It said it had been dealing with the freeholder, and the limit of its liability was £1,000. It said it needed an invoice to show completed work, and it would then settle, less the £750 excess.
  11. On 19 February 2024 the landlord told the resident the insurers had made a payment less the excess fee. The resident replied the same day and asked why there was an excess, as the leak was from the flat above. She said it was a building fault, and she was not liable for any excess. The landlord replied and said the excess applied when she made a claim and did not depend on fault.
  12. The Ombudsman has seen there was then a disagreement between the landlord and freeholder about the excess fee. Records show the landlord contacted the freeholder on 20 February 2024. It said the freeholder told the resident she would get £1,000 and asked if it was paying the excess as it had misinformed her. The freeholder responded and asked the landlord to confirm if the excess was its responsibility as the leak was from a communal pipe. It said as the pipe was maintained by the landlord, the landlord was liable for the excess. The landlord disputed this and said the resident was responsible as the person who made the claim, no matter who was at fault.
  13. Because of the lack of clarity in the lease agreement, the Ombudsman is unable to decide whether the repair was the landlord or freeholder’s responsibility. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the damage was not the resident’s responsibility and the information the landlord gave her on 19 February 2024 was incorrect. This is because communal repairs and any damage caused, are the responsibility of the landlord or freeholder. While the resident is responsible for everything in her home, in this case a fault with a communal pipe caused the damage. This means the resident is not responsible for the damage, and she should not have to pay the excess fee.
  14. Although the landlord disagreed with the freeholder about who was responsible, the resident’s relationship as a leaseholder is with the landlord. Because of this, the landlord must refund the resident the £750 excess fee.
  15. On 5 March 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s communication about the insurance and the excess fee. In its complaint response on 2 April 2024 the landlord said as the freeholder insured the property, it was not involved in setting the policy. It said it sent a copy of the insurance policy on 22 February 2024, and this showed an excess fee of £750. It said as the resident had claimed before, she was aware of this. It said as it was not liable, it would not pay the excess. It apologised for the lack of communication and offered £25 compensation.
  16. The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the lack of communication. However, it passed responsibility to the freeholder even though there had been a disagreement between the landlord and freeholder over who was responsible for the excess. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was unreasonable in the circumstances, and the compensation was insufficient.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2024. She said she knew there was an excess if she made a claim for a leak in her flat, but this was from the flat above. She said the insurance policy sent on 22 February 2024 only stated the fee but did not give details on who was liable. She wanted proof of the terms and conditions.
  18. Following further emails from the resident in May 2024, the resident said on 1 June 2024 that she was “going round in circles” as the landlord and freeholder were not answering her questions and passing her between them.
  19. In its final response on 11 July 2024 the landlord said it was sorry the resident had not received a response to her questions. It apologised for conflicting information about responsibility. It said as it was not involved in arranging the insurance, the resident needed to discuss the terms and conditions with the freeholder. It said its role was to only help residents make claims. It said it would not pay the excess but increased the offer of compensation to £50 as a “gesture of goodwill”.
  20. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its final response. It did not respond to her questions about the terms and conditions and instead directed her to the freeholder. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had a responsibility to provide this information and not doing so was a communication failure.
  21. The resident was not responsible for the excess fee. The pipe that caused the damage was not in the resident’s property and was not her responsibility to repair. The insurance policy was between the freeholder and the insurance company. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the excess fee is part of block management and is payable by the whole block through the freeholder and service charges. The Ombudsman has found the landlord gave the resident incorrect information that she had to pay the excess because she reported the damage. The landlord has the legal relationship with the freeholder. The resident’s relationship is with the landlord not the freeholder. As a result of the advice given by the landlord the resident incorrectly paid the excess, and the landlord must refund the resident.
  22. The Ombudsman has found the landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident. It did not consider other options for a situation where the resident was left with a significant cost through no fault of her own. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord. In these circumstances, the £50 compensation offered in the final response was not enough. The landlord must pay increased compensation of £150 for its communication failures and the distress and inconvenience caused.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that when a resident makes a complaint it will acknowledge it within 5 working days and send a response in 10. When a resident escalates their complaint, the landlord will send its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s communication on 10 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within its target timescales.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 April 2024. The landlord told her she would need to raise the issue with the freeholder and did not escalate the complaint. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was unreasonable and a complaint handling failure. This is because the resident’s relationship was with the landlord not the freeholder and the landlord should have dealt with the resident’s complaint at stage 2.
  4. When the freeholder told the resident on 17 May 2024 that she needed to raise the matter with the landlord, she sent emails to the landlord on 17 May and 1 June 2024 chasing a response. The landlord sent an escalation acknowledgement on 14 June 2024. It sent its final response on 11 July 2024. This was 71 working days after the resident escalated her complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not follow its complaints policy when the resident tried to escalate her complaint. Instead, it directed her to the freeholder. The freeholder may have been able to help the resident with her questions, but the landlord should still have escalated the complaint and worked with the freeholder to resolve the complaint. When the landlord finally escalated the complaint on 1 June 2024, it took 6 weeks to respond. This was a failure to meet the timescales in its policy.
  6. The landlord’s failures caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident who was “running around in circles” chasing a response. Because of this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must pay the resident £150 for its failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord on its:
    1. Communication about insurance and an excess fee.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures found in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 compensation for failures found in this report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident within 4 weeks and not offset it against any arrears. This is made up of:
    1. A refund of the £750 excess fee.
    2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its communication, inclusive of £50 previously offered.
    3. £150 for failures in its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord must write to the resident clearly setting out the responsibilities of the freeholder, landlord, and resident on repairs and insurance. It must explain the process should a further building insurance claim be needed. It must provide her with up-to-date copies of insurance and service charge information.
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.