Sanctuary Housing Association (202425126)

Background

1. The resident requested an update on her kitchen replacement in June 2024. The resident’s son raised the complaint on her behalf. The landlord corresponded directly with him. For clarity, we will refer to all correspondence from or to her son as being with “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for a new kitchen.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:
   1. The landlord took appropriate steps in surveying the kitchen to see if its condition meant it required replacement. It was reasonable in conducting a second survey when the resident was unhappy with the first.
   2. The landlord’s decision to carry out repairs rather than replace the kitchen was in line with its policy and obligations.
   3. The compensation offered was reasonable for the short term delay in obtaining the first survey results.
   4. The landlord handled the complaint in a timely manner and in line with the Code.

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 investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

6. During the complaints procedure, the resident raised concerns about staff conduct. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response. The resident has not included this issue in their referral to us. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on, and assessed, the landlord’s handling of the new kitchen request as defined above.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord’s capital investment policy notes it will use stock condition surveys, planned life cycle schedules and local knowledge when programming planned replacements. It says it aims to meet the Decent Homes Standard. The Decent Homes Standard considers a kitchen which is less than 20 years old as ‘reasonably modern’. However, a kitchen will not fail the standard on age alone, it must also be in such poor condition it needs major repair.
8. The resident contacted the landlord in June 2024 and requested a new kitchen. She explained it had previously programmed this work, but it was cancelled during the pandemic. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident cancelled scheduled replacements in 2021 and 2022.
9. Following the resident’s request, the landlord booked a survey of the kitchen in August 2024. This was a reasonable step and in keeping with its policy to use local knowledge and stock condition surveys to make assessments. At the survey, the operative indicated it was unlikely the landlord would consider the kitchen in need of replacement, and the resident raised a complaint in September 2024.
10. The landlord’s September 2024 stage 1 response explained it was still awaiting the outcome of the survey. It had no record that it had declined or accepted a kitchen replacement yet. It offered compensation of £25 for the delay in receiving the outcome of the survey. This was a reasonable offer and in line with its compensation policy for a low impact service failure.
11. The resident’s escalation request referenced that she felt the operative conducting the survey was not suitably qualified. The landlord booked a further survey in with its surveyor. This was a resolution focussed step in ensuring it had reliable information and was making an informed decision regarding the kitchen replacement.
12. The survey noted the original layout had been altered and needed an additional unit. The landlord offered to book this work in as well as screeding the floor to provide an even surface as the resident had recently removed a floor covering. This would not constitute a major repair, and the landlord’s decision that the kitchen did not need replacing was again based on the inspection outcome. In offering the follow up works, it appropriately met its obligation to keep the property maintained.
13. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response that it had previously approved a new kitchen. It explained that, following the delay between the resident’s previous refusal and the new request, it required a new survey to assess the condition. It was appropriate for the landlord to highlight that both surveys confirmed the kitchen did not require replacement. It reasonably reoffered the compensation from its stage 1 response.
14. Though we understand the frustration this situation caused the resident, we find the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies and obligations. It referred to a change in its approach to planned works in its communication with the resident. Following the pandemic and a build-up of planned works, the landlord has apparently reviewed its strategy for planned replacements. It takes an approach based more on local knowledge and condition rather than replacing purely on the grounds of lifespan. This is reasonable and the landlord still met its obligations to maintain the property.
15. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the delay in confirming the outcome of the first survey was reasonable. It was in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings with a short duration and minimal impact. On this basis, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress.

16. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s policy is in line with this.
17. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints within these timeframes. Its response at stage 1 was issued within 5 working days of her complaint and its stage 2 response was issued within 10 working days of her escalation.
18. Its responses were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. It was fair in its actions and assessment. We therefore find there was no maladministration by the landlord

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord demonstrated strong practice through its comprehensive and accurate record keeping. Throughout the case, it was able to consistently access clear and well‑maintained records to inform its responses. This not only enabled it to respond effectively and transparently to the resident’s concerns but also provided a robust and reliable record for the investigation. Good record keeping such as this enhances accountability, supports fair case management, and reduces the risk of dispute by ensuring that information is readily available when needed.

Communication

20. Overall, the landlord communicated well during the complaints process and historically. It made efforts to clarify information with the resident. However, it could have fully explained the change in how it applied its policy. This gap created avoidable misunderstanding and frustration for the resident. Clear communication about decision-making is essential as it helps manage expectations and supports transparency. Improving this area would strengthen trust and reduce confusion in future cases.