Sanctuary Housing Association (202433197)

Decision
Case ID	202433197
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. In June 2024 the resident reported issues with her boiler, and shower water pressure. In October the resident further reported a total loss of heating and hot water. Also, the resident said the issue with her water pressure in her bathroom had not improved. The resident complained about the landlord’s management of the repairs and the impact on her as a vulnerable adult.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports about boiler repairs.
   2. Reports about water pressure.
   3. The associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in response to reports about boiler repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in response to reports about water pressure.
   3. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Boiler repairs

4. The landlord made reasonable attempts to respond to the resident’s boiler issue in June 2024 within its emergency timescales. However, it did not meet those timescales when the boiler failed again in October 2024. Although the resident said the boiler was temperamental and chose not to request another repair, the landlord did not take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that it had fully resolved the issue, which contributed to the service failure.

Water pressure

5. The landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s concerns about low water pressure, but it delayed explaining that it could not improve the shower pressure without adaptations and continued to arrange further appointments. This raised the resident’s expectations unnecessarily. The landlord acknowledged these failings and offered suitable redress, which appropriately addressed the service failure and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in the complaint policy at stage 1 but delayed its response at stage 2 by 3 working days. It did not acknowledge the delay in its final complaint response and did not offer appropriate redress 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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by service failures in respect of its response to boiler repairs. £100 to recognise delays caused by its complaint handling service failures.  This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £300 compensation offered within its complaint responses, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
03 June 2024 and 15 October 2024	The resident reported issues with her boiler. This included: A loss of heating and hot water in June and October. Low water pressure
27 November 2024	The resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said: The landlord had failed to resolve her repairs since June and despite multiple appointments. This had caused her distress and inconvenience, and time taken off work unnecessarily. The landlord had failed to consider her vulnerability due to her mental health and safeguarding needs when responding to her repair. She repeatedly chased the landlord who failed to meet its obligation to complete the repair which left her feeling exhausted and impacted on her wellbeing. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 December 2024.
11 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: Boiler repair It made appointments in June and October after the resident’s reports of a boiler breakdown, but delays in its service was due to a lack of access and contact with the resident. Water pressure It had responded to the resident’s reports of low water pressure to the shower, but after multiple appointments from its operatives it found there was adequate water pressure from the gravity fed mixer taps installed for bathing only. It concluded the attached shower hose was not set up for use as a shower. It could not make alteration to the bathroom without a recommendation from an occupational therapist. It would chase up its further appointment to see if it could complete follow-on works which it would monitor. It upheld the complaint on the grounds of a lack of communication and offered £50.00 in compensation.
13 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, which the landlord acknowledged on 19 December 2024.
18 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It said: Boiler repair It found no service failing in relation to her requests for boiler repairs due to no access by operatives and the resident’s wishes that she did not want to report further faults, and no further record of the same. Water pressure It apologised for the inconvenience the resident experienced for the low water pressure. Its customer service manager had maintained contact with the resident’s concerns and actively followed this up with its operational team. It could not undertake repairs to enhance the shower pressure because the shower hose attached to the gravity-fed mixer taps was an addition and the bathroom was not equipped to be used with a shower. It could only consider installing a shower following a recommendation of an occupational therapist based on medical needs. It acknowledged the resident had not installed the equipment, which it said a previous tenant may have installed. It apologised for the confusion and failure to better manage the resident’s expectations at the outset. It also recognised the inconvenience caused by multiple visits and a miscommunication that it would complete the repairs. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised. It offered compensation of £250 to reflect the overall inconvenience, time and trouble, poor communication, multiple visits and unmet expectations.  Complaint handling It had found no service failure in respect of its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident originally brought her complaint to us on 28 November 2024 before the landlord had exhausted its internal complaints process (ICP). The resident contacted us again on 18 December 2024 and 6 February 2025.   The resident said the landlord’s lack of accountability and consideration of its duty of care impacted on her mental health. She had taken time off work on 4 occasions, but the landlord could not complete works due to the operatives attending not having relevant skills to complete works. She wanted the landlord to complete works, compensate her for time off work and to stop giving her false expectations.
Post landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).	Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident submitted an occupational therapist recommendation to it for adaptations on medical grounds. We note the landlord has since approved the works to install a wet room in the property. However, the resident has told us the works are still outstanding. We note the resident has made further complaints to the landlord about communication and delays to the bathroom adaptation in June 2025 and December 2025.

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.

Complaint	Landlord’s response to boiler repair.
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident has told us the ongoing delays in repairs on all grounds complained about relevant to this investigation had affected her mental health. While we are sympathetic to the resident’s experience, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions or omissions caused or impacted on a person’s overall health and wellbeing. This would be for a fairer and more reasonable process to determine such as a more suitable civil procedure or a court. We have not investigated this further, but we can consider if the landlord should compensate for any general distress and inconvenience as a result of a failure in service.
8. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to maintain the heating and hot water installations, and it requires the resident to report repairs promptly. The repairs policy states the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and will complete appointed repairs within 45 days, or 28 days for residents with vulnerabilities.
9. The resident reported a boiler breakdown on 3 June 2024. The landlord arranged an appointment for the next day, but the operative could not gain access and could not contact the resident. The operative attended again on 5 June, diagnosed a faulty pump and the need for a power flush, and raised follow‑on work. The landlord completed these works on 10 June and 26 July 2024. The landlord acted within its published timescales and progressed the repair appropriately, which was reasonable.
10. The resident reported another loss of heating and hot water on 15 October 2024. The landlord responded the following day, which met its emergency repair standard. The resident reported the same issue again on 19 October. The landlord contacted her on the same day and booked an appointment for 21 October, but the operative could not gain access. The landlord raised another job on 24 October but could not reach the resident to arrange attendance.
11. During this period, the resident contacted the landlord and explained she had attended hospital at a similar time to the scheduled appointments. The resident did not report any further issues with the boiler after 24 October. In November 2024 she told the landlord she had been unwell and that the boiler was working but was temperamental. The landlord advised her to report a further repair if there was an ongoing fault. The records do not show the resident reported a further fault.
12. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to report repairs as soon as they arise. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to arrange access on several occasions and acted when it received reports from the resident. However, there was a brief delay in response to the resident’s report of a boiler breakdown on 19 October 2024 and the landlord failed to respond within 24 hours. We note the landlord contacted the resident on 19 October and scheduled an appointment for 21 October and again on 25 October but there was no access. Therefore, the landlord made reasonable efforts to progress the repair.
13. While we acknowledge the access issues fell outside of its control, and we recognise no further reports had been made by the tenant to its repairs team, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have attempted to complete follow up checks regarding potentially unresolved repair issue about the loss of heating and hot water in winter for a vulnerable resident.
14. Further, we note the resident had notified the landlord in November 2024 the boiler was operating but was temperamental because sometimes it would not turn on at all. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s reluctance to report a further repair was due to her loss of confidence in it. Therefore, the resident’s comments were not sufficient mitigation for its decision to take no further action at all to address a reported fault. Particularly given the resident reported the ongoing issue to its customer services. In all the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made further attempts to arrange an inspection of the boiler to address any outstanding issues, especially given what it knew about the resident’s vulnerability. Therefore, we find a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair request.
15. In summary, the landlord made reasonable attempts to respond to the boiler repair on the first occasion. It delayed its second response following the resident’s reports of a boiler breakdown in October 2024 beyond the expected 24 hours which the landlord failed to acknowledge in its stage 2 response. While it did evidence it had made attempts to attend to attend and assess the boilers functionality, it did not make reasonable attempts to raise follow-up action to satisfy itself the boiler was operational before closing the repair. This amounts to a service failure.
16. In its final complaint response, the landlord did not offer redress, nor did it recognise its failure in service. Therefore, it did not demonstrate it acted in line with our dispute resolution principles – to act fairly, to put things right and to learn from outcomes.
17. We recognise the resident did not pursue further repairs or report any continuing impact linked to the boiler fault. While this means the landlord’s inaction did not necessarily alter the eventual outcome, the failure to respond appropriately resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience during the period the resident was without heating and hot water.
18. Therefore, to reflect this service failure and its impact, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation

Complaint	Landlord’s response to water pressure issue
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. We note after the landlord’s final complaint response the resident submitted medical evidence and later an occupational therapist’s recommendation relating to bathroom adaptations. This included new information about the resident’s physical health. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord was aware of this information at the time of the complaint.
20. We have investigated the resident’s concerns about low water pressure at her property between June 2024 and the landlord’s final complaint response issued on 18 January 2025.
21. The resident has since made further complaints to the landlord about its communications and delays in progressing the works for which the landlord has provided final complaint responses on 22 October 2025 and 21 February 2026. While we understand the resident remains dissatisfied, we cannot consider the substance of those new complaint matters here as they have not yet been brought into our formal remit and therefore fall outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident may bring those new complaints to this Service within 12 months of the landlord’s final complaint response.
22. The landlord is responsible under the tenancy agreement for keeping installations for the supply of water in repair and proper working order. This obligation does not extend to appliances. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete appointed repairs within 45 days or within 28 days for vulnerable residents and aims to complete repairs within 90 days. It states a partial loss of water is as appointed repair.
23. The resident made several reports about low water pressure between June and November 2024. She later complained on 27 November 2024 that the landlord had not resolved her concerns about the water pressure since June despite assurances that operatives would attend.
24. The records show the landlord raised a work order on 19 June 2024 and booked an appointment for 15 July 2024, which was within its 28-day timeframe for vulnerable residents. The resident has told us the operative who attended changed the hose and shower head, which she said was ineffective. The resident said the operative said they did not have the required expertise to resolve the issue and recommended that a suitably qualified operative attend. It was reasonable for a multi-trade operative to attempt to resolve the resident’s concerns initially, but there is no record of follow-on actions raised. The absence of timely-follow on actions was unreasonable as it delayed a lasting resolution for the resident.
25. The records show operatives attended on 21 August, 4 October and 22 November 2024.  On 21 August, the operative recorded that the gravity-mixer taps installed did not provide sufficient water pressure for use with a shower attachment. The operative also logged the tiling indicated the bathroom had not been designed for a shower. There is no evidence the landlord communicated this outcome to the resident at the given time. Instead, it continued to schedule further visits, which raised the resident’s expectations that it could resolve the issue as a routine repair.  The delay in communicating the issue almost 5 months later was unreasonable. Once the landlord understood the issue was related to the bathroom’s design rather than a routine repair matter, it would have been reasonable for it to have managed the resident’s expectations by providing a clear explanation sooner.
26. The resident said she took time off work unnecessarily and repeatedly had to chase the landlord. From October 2024, a customer service manager was in regular contact with the resident and communicated sympathetically and proactively to assist the resident in chasing its operatives about the repair. This was good practice. However, the lack of clarity about the underlying issue and the landlord continuing to send operatives who could not resolve the water pressure issue raised the resident’s expectations. When the repair did not take place, this understandably caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
27. The repair records indicate a disconnect between the information held by the landlord and the work completed by its operatives. For example, although the landlord requested for a specialist plumber to attend on 22 November 2024, the resident reported the same multi-trade operative who had visited previously had attended. The evidence shows this was contrary to the instruction the landlord gave in its work order. This suggests the operative did not follow the landlord’s instructions.
28. The landlord’s repairs policy requires its operatives to provide timely and detailed updates about when they complete repairs. We have not seen evidence that this occurred. The limited detail in the records meant the landlord could not provide the resident with timely updates which contributed to avoidable delays. These delays amount to poor record keeping and represents a service failure.
29. In its stage 2 response on 18 January 2025, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the service failures. It explained that the bathroom was not equipped for a shower and that the existing water pressure was adequate for a bath. It also advised the resident that any changes would require an occupational therapist’s recommendation under its adaptations policy.
30. The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations policy states that major adaptations that cost over £750 must be funded through the local authority and requires an occupational therapist assessment to explain any difficulties a resident has with access to areas within the home before it can seek approval for changes to a property. The records indicate that the landlord knew, following its operative visit on 21 August 2024, that the bathroom was not designed for shower use. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it was aware of the resident’s physical disability at the start of the tenancy, or that this became known to the landlord at the time of the resident’s reports of water pressure issues.
31. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the occupational therapist route in its final response. There is a concern however that it did not do so sooner given that it was aware from August 2024 that the existing set up did not offer shower facilities. However, as we do not know when the landlord became aware of the resident’s physical health condition, we have not made a finding that it delayed unreasonably in signposting her down the appropriate aids and adaptations process.
32. In summary, the landlord made reasonable attempts to identify the cause of the resident’s report of low water pressure in the bathroom. Once it became clear the bathroom was not designed for a shower and as such it could not resolve it through its standard repair response, the landlord delayed communicating this to the resident. However, it is unclear if the landlord was aware at the given time of the resident’s physical disability needs that warranted adaptions. It continued to send operatives without the necessary expertise. Poor record keeping and coordination between its operational and customer facing staff meant that it missed communicating follow-on actions that adequately managed expectations. These failings caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident and amounted to a service failure.
33. Where we identify service failure, we must consider whether the landlord’s redress was appropriate and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles – to act fairly, to put things right and to learn from outcomes. The landlord offered £300 to recognise its delays, poor communication, multiple visits and the impact to the resident due to a failure to manage her expectations. This aligns without our remedies guidance for a service failure and the landlord’s own compensation policy for medium to high impact service failings.
34. We consider the amount offered was proportionate to the failings and the impact to the resident given the evidence does not indicate it knew of the resident’s disability needs at this point. Ultimately, the landlord provided information to the resident about how to make a request for bathroom adaptations. Therefore, we consider this satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The Code requires landlords to respond to complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 in 10 and 20 working days, respectively, with an acknowledgment at each stage within 5 working days. Further, the code allows an extension at stage 1 and stage 2 of no more than 10 and 20 working days, respectively, explained in advance.
36. The landlord has a published its latest complaints policy dated 25 March 2024, which, in the most part, complies with the terms of the Code. However, it sets out it may allow an extension of to 20 working days at stage 1 and 2, which does not align with the Code.
37. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days and issued its stage 1 response within in 10 working days, which met its expected timescales.
38. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 13 December 2024 within 5 working days, which was appropriate, but it responded to the complaint on 18 January 2025 which was 23 working days later. This fell outside of the expected timescales set out in the Code because there is no evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident about an extension.
39. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord identified no service failure in respect of its complaint handling. Therefore, it failed to acknowledge its delayed complaint handling or offer appropriate redress to put things right. This amounts to a service failure.
40. We therefore order the landlord to pay to the resident £100 to recognise the delay.
41. Although not relevant to this complaint, we have raised the issue about its compliance with the Code as part of our overall identified learning for the landlord.

Learning

General learning

42. The case showed multiple operatives attended that did not progress the repair or identify the issue with the bathroom limitations. Our Spotlight report Repairs and maintenance (May 2025) highlights the need for accurate early diagnosis and avoiding repeated and ineffective visits, and the need to ensure operatives with the correct expertise attend. The landlord should consider how it considers how it triages repairs to ensure operatives with the correct skills attend and to understand when a repair issue is a responsive repair or an adaptation issue to prevent a similar occurrence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. There was a lack of clarity about the work orders and incorrect operatives attended despite the landlord’s instructions. There was a lack of information sharing between operational staff and the landlord’s customer services which hindered case management. The importance of accurate records and real-time updates from its operatives is vital to providing a timely and customer focused approach to repairs.
44. The landlord should ensure it has robust processes in place to accurately identify, record and update residents’ vulnerabilities on its systems. It should clearly document any information about vulnerability shared by the resident and ensure its records are accurate and up to date.

Communication

45. The landlord’s communication with the resident was empathetic which is positive. However, the delays in communicating issues in relation to water pressure and its failure to manage the resident’s expectations meant there was avoidable frustration and distress for the resident.
46. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to consider how unmet expectations was likely to increase the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
47. The landlord should be mindful of our Spotlight report ‘Attitudes, Respect and Rights’ (January 2024) which promotes the importance of timely and clear communication with residents and the need to consider how it escalates cases where vulnerabilities may increase distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

48. The complaint response was timely under the landlord’s policy, but the policy itself does not align with the Code’s required timescales for extending a complaint beyond 10 working days at stage 1. The landlord should review its policy to provide clarity about the timescale to reflect the Code requirements.
49. We note the landlord has published 2 different complaint policies over its Sanctuary Group and Supported Living websites. Therefore, it should review its online publications and ensure information is up to date.