Sanctuary Housing Association (202429536)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. Since 2020, the resident raised several reports about repairs to the rear door. The landlord attended the property on multiple occasions following these reports to carry out repairs. The door was replaced in February 2025. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to take responsibility for the repair and poor communication.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Door repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of door repairs.
4. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord tried to repair the door however these repairs were not successful and the door was replaced in February 2025. During this period, the resident raised multiple repair requests and reported significant inconvenience. While the landlord demonstrated a willingness to repair the door and it was reasonable to attempt repairs where these were possible, the continued delay warranted consideration of an alternative and timely solution. The landlord acknowledged its failures and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
6. The landlord incorrectly concluded in the stage 1 complaint response that there were no previous reports of the door repair. However at stage 2 it recognised its error and took 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 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 looked at

5. The resident raised multiple repair requests for the door since 2020. While the historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 27 October 2022. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of the door repair

6. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the premises, including outside doors in good repair. The landlord does not dispute this.
7. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and make the property safe, and all other repairs will be completed in 28 days. It states that emergency repairs include insecure external doors that inhibit the safety of the residents and property.
8. The landlord’s records showed that all repair jobs were categorised as routine. While the broken door caused inconvenience, most reports did not raise security concerns and therefore this was reasonable. However, on 15 April 2024 and 13 May 2024, the resident reported security concerns. The landlord should have treated these as emergencies and responded within 24 hours, but did not attend until  8 July 2024.
9. Following the resident’s initial report on 27 October 2022, the landlord carried out repair work on 1 December 2022, in 35 calendar days. Although this exceeded the expected timeframe for routine repairs, the 7 calendar day delay was minimal. It completed follow up works in January 2023. The resident raised a second report on 27 August 2023, with no issues reported during the intervening 7 months. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the problem persisted throughout that period.
10. Thereafter there were significant delays between August 2023 until the door’s replacement in February 2025. The available evidence indicates that the landlord did not attend until 4 December 2023 and during this visit, it identified that replacement hinges needed to be ordered. These parts were not fitted until 15 April 2024, which is an excessive and unreasonable delay. Shortly after in May 2024, the resident reported that the problems with the door persisted. It was not until November 2024 that the landlord concluded the hinges were unsuitable and it replaced the door in February 2025.
11. We found no clear records confirming when the door was replaced. However, based on a complaint response and the resident’s account, we deduced that the door was replaced in February 2025. We also found that the landlord’s record-keeping and internal communication were inadequate and confusing, and this contributed to the overall delay in resolving the repair.
12.  The landlord’s decision to repair and not replace the door until late 2024 was not reasonable as the issue had been ongoing since 2022. It failed to actively manage the repair and have a clear plan, and it responded reactively to previous repair outcomes causing avoidable delays. It should have taken ownership of the ongoing issue. Landlords must demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to resolve issues promptly and minimise disruption to residents. While it is reasonable to attempt repairs where these are possible, the repeated failures and continued delay warranted consideration of an alternative and timely solution. This could have included replacing the door or seeking further professional advice.
13. The resident reported taking unpaid leave for repeated repair visits. The landlord acknowledged the excessive number of appointments but declined compensation for lost earnings in line with its policy. The Ombudsman generally does not recommend compensation for lost wages during repairs as tenancy agreements require residents to provide access. While reimbursement may be considered in exceptional cases, this situation did not justify it. The total compensation offered (£550) reflected the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures.
14. Although the delay in replacing the door amounted to maladministration, the landlord took appropriate steps to put things right as it acknowledged its failings and offered an apology and compensation. The total compensation of £550 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It was proportionate to the delay and failures identified in this report and impact to the household. This was at the higher end of the maladministration as per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, reflecting the extent of the delays and the impact on the resident, who had to chase repairs and live with a damaged door for an extended period. Therefore the landlord made a reasonable offer to resolve the matter. The landlord is recommended to pay this compensation to the resident if not paid already.
15. The landlord committed to monitoring the outstanding works however it did not demonstrate learning and it was not clear how it would improve services. As the landlord was unable to demonstrate neither any improvement nor any learning and insight, we have recommended the landlord to undertake a case review into its handling of repairs, how it would avoid and minimise multiple appointments and complaints, and to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again.

16. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint at stage 1 within the 10-working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy. It also addressed the stage 2 complaint within the extended target timeframe allowed under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its complaints policy.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had missed previous reports of the door issues during stage 1. It apologised and explained that this oversight resulted from poor record-keeping by the repairs team and oversight by the stage 1 investigation team. It admitted that the complaint should have been upheld on this basis. Landlords must ensure that complaints are investigated thoroughly and that responses are accurate.
18. At stage 2, the landlord had the opportunity to review its initial response and change its decision. It recognised the error, provided an explanation and offered £200 in compensation. This amount exceeded what we would have awarded under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer to resolve the issue. The landlord is recommended to pay this compensation to the resident if not paid already.

Learning

19. It is important that the landlord recognises prolonged repairs and considers an alternative and timely solution for a permanent repair.