Sanctuary Housing Association (202442723)

Background

1. The resident complained that the landlord delayed unreasonably in repairing her boiler from January 2025 until January 2026. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to provide greater compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty boiler.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord exceeded its repairs timescales by 294 days in completing the boiler repair. It unnecessarily duplicated works orders and inspections which likely contributed to this delay. It also failed to keep the resident regularly and proactively updated about the progress of the works as per its repairs policy.
6. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales. However, it exceeded its stage 2 timescales by 42 working days. While it offered some compensation for this, the sum offered was not proportionate to the length of the delay.

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.

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 considered

7. In a phone call with the resident on 12 March 2026 she complained that the landlord had failed to address a pest infestation and faulty windows in the property.
8. Our Scheme states we may not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure. The resident first reported window issues and a pest infestation via email on 24 June 2025. This was 2 months after her stage 2 escalation request. We also note that these matters were not part of the original complaint. We can see the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss this email on 23 and 24 July 2025. The resident did not respond to these calls and did not report the issues again until she raised them as part of her disrepair claim on 3 November 2025.
9. Therefore, we do not consider the resident brought these matters to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint before its final response on 24 July 2025. For this reason, we have not considered them as part of this investigation.
10. While we have considered the distress this may have caused the resident, this investigation has not considered any potential impact of the boiler issues on the resident or her children’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this part to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

What we have considered

11. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend and “make safe” emergency repairs within 24 hours of a reported issue. It defines loss of heating during winter months as an emergency issue. The policy explains the landlord will complete appointed repairs within 45 days. It also explains the landlord will regularly and proactively update residents on the progress of their repairs.
12. The resident first reported the boiler was faulty on 5 January 2025. The landlord attended within its emergency timescales the following day. However, it was unable to complete a temporary repair to restore the heating or hot water at this visit. On 13 January 2025 the landlord attended and diagnosed that it needed to install an unvented cylinder to fully address the issue. It then delayed in completing a temporary repair to restore heating and hot water until 30 January 2025. Therefore, it exceeded its emergency repair timescales by 24 days in restoring some form of heating.
13. We can see the landlord then raised works to install the unvented cylinder on 3 February 2025 and prioritised this as a “planned” repair. There is no definition of a planned repair in the landlord’s policy, so we have understood that this refers to an appointed repair. Despite raising these works, the landlord delayed in completing them until 9 January 2026. This was 294 days past its appointed repairs timescales.
14. We have not seen any evidence within the records to justify this delay. For example, we can see the landlord raised identical works to replace the cylinder on 9 occasions from February 2025 until January 2026. We note that the landlord chased its contractor on several occasions during this period to schedule the works. Therefore, while we recognise it took some action to progress things, it is ultimately responsible for its contractor’s lack of action and the resulting delay.
15. The landlord also completed duplicate inspections of the boiler in November and December 2025 only to confirm the diagnosis first established on 13 January 2025. Internal emails throughout this period, such as those sent on 11 December 2025, suggest a lack of clarity on the landlord’s part as to its strategy to resolve the issue. This lack of clarity likely contributed to the delay.
16. The landlord also failed to regularly and proactively update the resident about the progress of the works. This meant the resident was forced to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates throughout the entire period. For instance, in its stage 2 response on 24 July 2025 it advised that it would contact her to schedule the works within 5 working days. It then failed to meet this deadline and made no attempts to contact the resident for the following 4 months. As a result, the resident opted to start a disrepair claim on 3 November 2025, which the landlord then responded to. This was not in line with its repairs policy. It is also disappointing that the landlord’s lack of communication led the resident to feel she had to resort to a disrepair claim to compel it to engage with her.
17. Ultimately, the landlord exceeded its repairs timescales by 294 days in repairing the boiler. This delay in progressing the unvented cylinder works in a reasonable time meant that the temporary repair failed again by 8 December 2025. This left the resident without heating or hot water from this stage until 9 January 2026. The landlord also failed to meaningfully communicate with the resident during the entire period as per its repairs policy.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay:
    1. £3 per day for total loss of hot water, and;
    2. £3 per day for total loss of heating during winter months between 1 October to 30 April.
    3. £5 per temporary heater per day between 1 October and 30 April.
19. The resident was entirely without hot water and heating from 5 January 2025 until the landlord completed temporary the repair on 30 January 2025. This equates to 25 days at £6 per day. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay her £150 compensation as per its policy.
20. The resident has advised us that the temporary repair failed in September 2025 and that she was without heating or hot water from this stage until 9 January 2026. However, we cannot see any evidence that she reported the failure of the temporary repair until 8 December 2025. We can see the landlord installed 2 temporary heaters on 12 December 2025, and so it does not appear the resident was without heating from this point onwards. However, we consider it more likely than not that the resident was without hot water from at least 8 December 2025. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay a further £108 compensation as per its guidance. This is made up of:
    1. £3 per day for loss of heating from 8 December to 12 December 2025.
    2. £3 per day for loss hot water from 8 December 2025 until 9 January 2026.
21. We note the landlord has already offered the resident £300 in its stage 2 response on 24 July 2025 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. It offered a further £100 for “future impact until 1 October 2025”.
22. On 6 January 2026 it offered the resident a pre-action protocol settlement of £1,184.93 as redress for its handling of her reports of the boiler issues, damaged windows, pest infestation, damp and mould, and a faulty bedroom ceiling. The settlement offer did not individually allocate sums per issue. Therefore, we have divided the total sum equally per issue. On this basis the landlord offered the resident a further £236.99 for its boiler repair related omissions up until 6 January 2026.
23. In determining whether the total £636.99 so far offered goes far enough to put right distress and inconvenience the resident was likely caused by the landlord’s omissions, we have considered how:
    1. the landlord’s poor communication and delays in progressing the works continued for another 3 months beyond 1 October 2025
    2. the landlord’s failure to progress and complete the required vented cylinder works in a reasonable time led to a further failure of the temporary repair in December 2025, which left the resident without hot water or heating for around a month
    3. the landlord failed to honour its stage 2 commitment to contact the resident to schedule the works within 5 working days
    4. the resident was caused further distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s ongoing failures after its stage 2 response until 9 January 2026
24. However, we have also considered how:
    1. the disrepair settlement offered on 6 January 2026 addressed the landlord’s continued delay from 1 October 2025 until it completed the repair
    2. we have ordered additional compensation to specifically address loss of heating and hot water
    3. our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted residents
    4. the resident likely had heating and hot water for the majority of the total period of delay
25. With this in mind, we consider £636.99 is sufficient compensation to put right distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s omissions.
26. The resident has explained the landlord has fully reimbursed the extra energy costs she incurred from temporary heater use from January 2025 until December 2025. However, she advised it has offered no reimbursement from December 2025 until the boiler was fully repaired on 9 January 2026 while she was still using temporary heaters.
27. Internal emails from 24 December 2025 note the landlord had only paid reimbursement for heater use up until November 2025. Therefore, we have ordered it to engage with the resident and determine how many temporary heaters she had in use from December 2025 until 9 January 2026. We have ordered it to then pay her £5 per day per heater used during this period as per its compensation guidance.

28. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days of this. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue a response within 20 working days of this. When it is unable to do so, it will write to residents to explain this and provide updated timescales. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
29. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 23 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and issued its response on 6 February 2025. This was within the timescales set out in its policy.
30. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this 2 working days late on 23 April 2025. It then issued its stage 2 response 42 working days late on 24 July 2025. We consider this likely caused the resident some distress.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay up to £150 compensation to put right complaints handling delays. We note it offered the resident £50 for the stage 2 delay in its final response. However, given the length of the delay, and its failure to update her during this period, we do not consider this is sufficient to put things right. For this reason, we have ordered the landlord to pay a further £50 to bring the total sum to the mid-upper range of its scale. This then suitably brings the total sum to the lower end of the range recommended in our remedies guidance.

Learning

32. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was generally poor. It raised the same works to install a new boiler cylinder on several occasions from January 2025 until January 2026. It also inspected the property on multiple occasions during this period despite diagnosing the issue on 13 January 2025. These duplicated actions likely delayed a resolution of the issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. For instance, it does not appear to have used previous repairs records to inform its approach to repairing the boiler. This likely played a role in the duplication of works orders and inspections. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of maintaining clear audit trails of repairs and using these to meaningfully inform future planned works.

Communication

34. The landlord’s communication was poor. It failed to regularly and proactively update the resident about the progress of works. It also failed to update the resident and provide new timescales when it failed to meet those it had already committed to. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on how better communication might have mitigated the ongoing impact of the delay on the resident.