From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202422502)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422502

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. concerns of asbestos in an outbuilding.
    2. reports of an electrical fault.
    3. request for a skip.
    4. complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant in a 3 bedroom detached house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord is aware the resident is disabled however, the records do not give any specific details of his vulnerabilities. The property includes an attached brick structure that the resident uses to store personal belongings, including a chest freezer. The landlord refers to this as an “outbuilding”. For the purposes of this report, we will also refer to the structure as such.
  2. On 11 October 2023 the landlord carried out an asbestos survey of the outbuilding ceiling, external downpipe and rain hopper. It is unclear what prompted this. It found that the risk was “very low” and that removal was not required.
  3. On 29 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report that his downstairs lights in his property kept tripping. An electrician attended the next day, on 30 April 2024. For safety reasons he was unable to complete the repair. This was because he had to check the asbestos report before continuing any work to the outbuilding.
  4. On 1 May 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint. He stated that:
    1. the landlord had “unnecessarily delayed” the electrical repair. This was because it had failed to indicate in its records that there was asbestos in his outbuilding.
    2. the delay of 16 hours between when the landlord identified an asbestos risk and contacting its asbestos team was “unacceptable”.
    3. he had been left without lights for 2 nights. The landlord should have offered to provide lamps “as a matter of urgency” until it fixed the lighting.
    4. in September 2023 the landlord had offered to look into providing him with a skip to declutter the outbuilding. He had chased this up “a few times” but had heard nothing back.
    5. due to the landlord’s failure to follow up on his skip enquiry, completion of emergency electrical work and detection of a roof leak was delayed.
  5. On 7 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The resident called the landlord to request a copy of the asbestos report on 14 May 2024. The landlord informed him on the same day that the skip would be delivered on 16 May 2024.  On 15 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response, which said:
    1. its survey on 11 October 2023 detected asbestos but confirmed none would be removed if there was no damage. It therefore took no further action.
    2. a senior operative had attended to the electrical repair. He confirmed the outbuilding lights were affected by water ingress from the roof.
    3. he had agreed with the resident to disconnect the outbuilding light from the electrical circuit to enable the lights to be used in the rest of the property.
    4. it had also raised a repair for the leaking roof.
    5. it had escalated his skip enquiry to his housing officer who had made arrangements for one to be delivered.
    6. it had passed his safety concerns onto the relevant team.
    7. it wanted to apologise for the resident’s time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused, and to offer £225 in recognition of this.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2024 to say that the electrical fault had resulted in his chest freezer losing power and “all the food spoiling”. He stated that it could cost him about £250 to replace the food and £400-£500 for a new freezer, but he was “willing to settle for £550”. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey of the rest of the property on 18 June 2024 and detected no asbestos containing materials (ACMs). It responded to the resident on 20 June 2024 to say that, as there was no evidence of damage caused to the freezer or food inside, it was unable to pay the compensation he had requested. It added that, if he was able to provide evidence, he should provide this and ask for his complaint to be escalated.
  7. The resident responded on the same day and said he had told it the food was in the skip. However, it had removed the skip before taking the opportunity inspect it. He stated that this was “ludicrous” and asked it to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged his stage 2 complaint on 26 June 2024 and issued its response on 8 July 2024. It stated that:
    1. the lights in the outbuilding were affected by water ingress from the leaking roof. It had disconnected the outbuilding lights from the circuit so the resident could use the lights in his property.
    2. the roofing contractor had scoped the works to the outbuilding roof and it was waiting for the quote.
    3. it had told him it would explore providing a skip to enable him to declutter his property but advised that this would not be before the Christmas period. It accepted that its communication regarding the skip “could have been better”.
    4. its delay in responding to his initial concerns about his freezer may have meant it was unable to witness the disposal of food. However, if kept closed, unplugged freezers could store food for up to 2 days before spoiling.
    5. it was unable to compensate for the freezer without evidence it was broken. However. If he could provide evidence or allow it to be inspected it would reconsider its position.
    6. it would expect tenants to have lamps or alternative means of lighting in their property. However, if it was established they did not and there were vulnerabilities that needed to be considered it would issue them at its discretion.
    7. it acknowledged that there had been delays and its communication has been poor. It was “truly sorry” for this.
    8. it wanted to make an increased offer of £500 compensation, broken down as:
      1. £225 it had offered at stage 1.
      2. £100 as an additional payment for time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
      3. £75 for its delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about his freezer.
      4. £100 to recognise the further inconvenience caused while waiting for the roof repair to be completed.

Events following conclusion of the complaints process

  1. Following further correspondence between the landlord and resident, it wrote to him on 12 July 2024. It told him that it had reconsidered the issue with regard to the damages he had reported. It stated that it wanted to raise its offer of compensation to £725. This included a discretionary payment toward the cost of replacing the frozen food and his freezer.
  2. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 September 2024. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response as it gave “zero regard” to the fact it had potentially exposed his family to asbestos. He stated that it had failed to check for possible asbestos cross contamination.
  3. The landlord carried out a further asbestos survey of the outbuilding on 14 October 2024. It identified “very low risk” ACMs. On 17 December 2024, the landlord removed all the ACMs in the outbuilding in preparation for planned works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that the landlord’s lack of action in responding to his reports of an electrical fault resulted in damage to his freezer and loss of food. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the losses he had incurred. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for impacts on damage to and loss of personal belongings. These matters, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a claim for loss and/or damages. However, we have considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Asbestos in an outbuilding

  1. We note the resident’s concerns and anxiety about the presence of asbestos materials within his outbuilding. However, the Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the level of asbestos or the risks involved. Our role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the asbestos in his property was in accordance with its policies and procedures, and relevant legal obligations. We have assessed whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The presence of materials containing asbestos in a home does not, in itself, automatically constitute disrepair or place a repair obligation on the landlord. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 state that if existing ACMs are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place. Their condition should be monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
  3. The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified in the same regulations. It must take reasonable steps to identify, record and have a management plan for asbestos. It must also protect residents from asbestos.
  4. Additionally, the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. This includes asbestos. Under the HHSRS, the landlord must assess any current damage or potential fibre release. The landlord’s Repairs Handbook states that if residents think there are materials that may contain asbestos in their home, and if these are damaged or in a poor condition, they should contact the landlord. It will arrange for a surveyor to inspect it.
  5. The landlord was aware of the asbestos in the resident’s outbuilding following a survey on 11 October 2023. This confirmed that the risk rating was “very low”, and that the materials did not require removal if left undisturbed. When the resident reported an electrical fault with his lights around 6 months later, the electrician who attended was unaware that the outbuilding contained ACMs. It was only when the resident made him aware of the issue that he delayed carrying out any further work until he was able to check the asbestos survey report.
  6. The onus should not be on the resident to inform operatives of the presence of ACMs in his property. The landlord should have added a note on its repair records to clearly alert staff to the presence of ACMs, their location and the outcome of the asbestos survey. That the landlord could not evidence it did so demonstrates poor record keeping. It was also a failure by the landlord to exercise its duty of care towards its staff. The landlord’s oversight could have put both the resident and staff at risk. This, along with the resulting delays in completing works, caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord identified that the electrical fault the resident had reported was caused by a leak from the outbuilding roof. Given the leaking ceiling contained asbestos, it is unclear why the landlord did not inspect this within 24 hours. If it had done so, it could have assessed whether there was any disturbed asbestos, and if it needed to take immediate action to reduce any risks posed to the resident. It could have also assessed whether the structure itself posed any concerns and determined whether any interim repairs were necessary. It was a failing that it did not investigate this promptly.
  8. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord considered completing a risk assessment to assess the household’s safety. The evidence shows the only area of the property that contained ACM’s was the outbuilding and that this was not a habitable part of the home. It was primarily used for storage of personal belongings. However, as it was attached to the rest of the property any possible fibre exposure could have posed a risk to the household. The landlord’s Health and Safety policy states that it has a procedure on conducting risk assessments. It states that the procedure contains requirements for “ongoing hazard identification, evaluation, and the determination of necessary controls”. That it could not demonstrate it considered carrying out any kind of risk assessment was therefore a failing.
  9. We note that, in order to provide reassurance to the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an asbestos survey of the rest of the property in May 2024. In this it found no evidence of ACMs. However, it is unclear why it could not have also included the outbuilding as part of its survey considering  potential disturbance caused by the leak. It was not until 14 October 2024, some 5 months after the landlord had discovered the leak that it carried out a further asbestos survey of the outbuilding. This delay would have caused the resident ongoing distress about potential asbestos contamination and the risks to his and his family’s health. The landlord’s delay in carrying out appropriate checks of a leak was a failing.
  10. The landlord should have done more to reassure the resident that the property was safe. We acknowledge a survey had been completed 6 months prior to the discovery of a leak. This left the landlord confident there was low risk of harm to the resident from the ACMs. However, the resident remained anxious and disturbed by their presence. The landlord failed to acknowledge this and provide the resident with the correct assurances that he required. It could have provided him with the report. Instead, the resident had to ask it several times to provide him with a copy. Delays in providing the resident with the asbestos survey would likely have created mistrust and a perception that the landlord was hiding something.
  11. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider ways to support the resident with his understanding of the risks about asbestos. It is clear he was anxious about asbestos within the outbuilding. It could have considered arranging for the resident to speak to a suitably qualified person to provide a better explanation to him about why it considered that the asbestos levels were safe. Overall, the landlord did not adequately manage the resident’s concerns about asbestos. At the point it became aware that the outbuilding roof had sustained a leak, it did not manage the asbestos in accordance with the relevant regulations or its policies. This caused the resident unnecessary distress over the possible risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.
  12. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy makes payments of up to £400 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience caused by failures in service provision. The amount is dependent on the level of impact on residents and the effort they have made to pursue their complaints. It will pay between £151 and £400 for “high impact/high effort”.
  14. We acknowledge the landlord’s attempts to put things right. Its offer of redress is in line with its compensation policy, and what we would award for distress and inconvenience for similar failings. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the impact its failings had had on the resident. It offered him £225, in recognition of the time taken by the resident and distress and inconvenience caused. In its stage 2 response, it acknowledged the ongoing impact and made an increased offer of £500. This included £75 in recognition of the lack of response to a concern he had raised.
  15. For the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman will not order that the landlord pays any additional compensation. However, it failed to give details on how it would learn lessons from the complaint and any actions it would take as a result. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure and will order the landlord to review how it recorded and managed the asbestos risk in this case. The review should consider whether it needs to make any changes to its policies to ensure avoidance of similar failings going forward.

Electrical fault

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out 2 categories of responsive repair. These are:
    1. Emergency – to attend and make safe the property within 24 hours of receiving the request.
    2. Appointed – to complete within 45 days, with an enhanced response time of 28 days for vulnerable residents.
  2. As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order any installations it provides. This includes electrical wiring, sockets and switches.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord attended the resident’s reported electrical fault within 24 hours. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. When the resident made the operative aware there was asbestos in the outbuilding, they correctly suspended works until they made the appropriate safety checks. The landlord acted reasonably by disconnecting the outbuilding lights from the electrical circuit in the interim. This was to ensure the household was able to use the lights in all the habitable parts of the property while waiting for further works to be carried out in the outbuilding.
  4. The resident stated that the landlord should have urgently provided him with lamps when the lighting in his property had failed. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that this was not something it provided as standard and that it expected residents to have alternative means of lighting in their property. It added that it did consider providing lamps in cases where there were vulnerabilities in the household and residents did not have other lighting options.
  5. The landlord is not obligated to provide residents with lamps in cases of electrical faults. However, it was aware that the resident was disabled. It should therefore have considered his vulnerabilities following his request. It should also have checked whether he had any other means of lighting. It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have properly considered whether providing lamps would have been appropriate. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  6. We will recommend that the landlord considers amending its repairs handbook to include information on replacement lighting in case of electrical faults. This would help provide clarification to residents on the landlord’s position with regard to provision of interim lighting.
  7. The resident reported that that, due to the electrical fault caused by a leak, the food in his chest freezer had spoilt and his freezer had become unusable. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for the lost food and damaged chest freezer. There is no evidence the landlord advised the resident that he could make a claim on his own contents insurance. If he did not have insurance, the landlord should have given the resident details of its insurer and information on how he could make a claim. The insurance provider could then have assessed liability for the losses/damage. We have therefore made a recommendation to ensure staff give residents details on how to claim on its insurance in cases where they feel it was responsible for damage caused to their belongings.
  8. However, although the landlord had initially stated it could not reimburse the resident due to lack of evidence, it later reconsidered its position. The landlord acted reasonably by offering the resident £225 towards the losses he had reported as a “goodwill gesture”.
  9. The landlord could have properly considered whether providing lamps to the resident following a lighting outage in his property would have been appropriate. However, we found that overall the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of an electrical fault. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Skip

  1. The resident stated that, in September 2023, the landlord offered to look into providing him with a skip. We have not seen a record of any prior correspondence relating to this. It is therefore unclear what the landlord had said at the time or when and how often the resident had chased this up. However, the landlord did acknowledge in its stage 2 response that its communication regarding this issue “could have been better”.
  2. There is no obligation on the landlord to provide skips to its residents for the purposes of de-cluttering their properties. Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord had told the resident when it would deliver the skip, or that it would definitely provide one. The evidence does show that it had advised him that, if it was able to provide a skip, it would not be able to do so until after the “Christmas period”.
  3. Having given the resident an undertaking that it would explore the possibility of providing a skip, it ought to have provided him with updates or some reassurance it was following up on the enquiry. It should not have been necessary for the resident to have made a complaint before the landlord took any further action. In cases like this, the landlord would have benefitted from a more effective system for reminding staff to follow up on such enquiries.
  4. However, the landlord acted reasonably following the resident’s complaint. It took appropriate account of his vulnerabilities when exercising its discretion and agreed to provide a skip at its own expense. The records show that it acted promptly to arrange delivery and provided the skip around 2 weeks after receiving the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, it contacted him on 7 and 14 May 2024 to give him progress updates. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint about his request for a skip. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in line with its complaints policy. It acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 3 working days, and issued its response within 6 working days of the acknowledgement. Furthermore, it acknowledged his escalation request within 1 working day, and issued a stage 2 response within 12 working days. This was appropriate.
  3. We note that the resident had asked the landlord to treat each concern he had raised as a separate complaint. There is no requirement in the Code for landlords to issue separate responses to each issue when they have been raised as part of the same complaint. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have addressed all the issues the resident had raised as part of the same complaint response.
  4. The landlord accepted that it had taken it longer than it should to respond to the additional concern the resident had raised on 22 May 2024. This related to damages he had incurred following loss of power to his chest freezer. It suggested that this had delayed his opportunity to escalate his complaint. The evidence shows it took the landlord 20 working days to respond to the resident’s request for reimbursement for loss and damage. This was longer than would reasonably be expected. However, the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It acted appropriately by offering the resident £75 compensation in recognition of the delay.
  5. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of asbestos in an outbuilding.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of an electrical fault.
    2. request for a skip.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident £425 it had offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
    3. confirm to us that it has taken the above actions.
  2. Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord must carry out a review on how it recorded and managed the asbestos risk in this case. It should consider:
    1. what measures it can take to affectively alert operatives and contractors to the presence of asbestos in their properties, before they carry out any work.
    2. how it can share outcomes of asbestos surveys with residents and provide clear information and reassurances about the levels of risk involved.
    3. how it can ensure it carries out prompt inspections of properties when any possible disturbances of asbestos are reported.
    4. whether it should make any amendments to its current repairs and asbestos management policies to ensure avoidance of similar failings going forward.
  3. The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body for scrutiny. A copy of the report is also to be provided to the Ombudsman within the above mentioned timescale.

 Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident:
    1. £75 it offered in its stage 2 response for its delay in responding to his concerns about his freezer.
    2. £225 it offered the resident following conclusion of the complaints process, in recognition of damage to his freezer and loss of its contents.
  2. When residents report any damage to and/or loss of personal possessions, the landlord should ensure it signposts them to their insurer. In cases where residents feel the landlord is responsible for the damage/loss, it should give them details on how to claim on its own insurance.
  3. The landlord should consider amending its repairs handbook to include information on provision of lamps in case of electrical faults. This would help provide clarification to residents on the landlord’s position with regard to provision of interim lighting.