From 13 January 2026, we will 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 (202447372)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447372

Sanctuary Housing Association

22 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of faulty hot water cylinder.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord until June 2025 and lived in a 2-bedroom flat. He had a mental health condition which the landlord was aware of.
  2. On 19 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that the hot water cylinder in the flat did not heat the water sufficiently overnight to keep it warm during the day. He also said the cylinder appeared to have a small leak and that the wood around it was rotten, with mould starting to develop.
  3. On 5 December 2024, the landlord arranged for a plumber to visit the resident’s property. The plumber replaced the kitchen taps and noted a leak at the bottom of the water cylinder, confirming that the cylinder needed replacing.
  4. On 25 January 2025, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said the hot water cylinder was leaking, which had been an issue since he first moved into the property. He explained that the situation had caused him distress and had worsened his mental health. He said this had affected his personal relationships.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 12 February 2025. It said it had reviewed the repair records for the resident’s flat and found no evidence that repairs had been raised for the hot water cylinder when he moved in. The landlord confirmed that the cylinder needed replacing and that an appointment had been booked the following month. It said it would try to bring the appointment forward if an earlier slot became available. It also said the case would be tracked and monitored until the repairs were completed. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for the impact the situation had on him.
  6. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He attached a copy of the report he had made in October 2023 and said the landlord had failed to provide adequate hot water and heating for the past year.
  7. On 22 February 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that the resident had reported issues with the hot water cylinder in October 2023 and accepted there had been a delay in raising repairs. It explained that the repairs had been assigned to the wrong team, which caused further delay before action was taken. The landlord apologised for this. It increased its offer of compensation to £150.
  8. The resident then escalated his complaint to our service. He said he had not been able to use the hot water cylinder because it had been leaking for 2 years. He wanted the landlord’s compensation to reflect both the distress and inconvenience caused since he first reported the problem in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that his living conditions were affecting his mental health. We understand his concerns and recognise this was a difficult time. However, claims about personal injury or harm to health, fall outside the complaints process. These claims would need to be taken up with the landlord’s public liability insurer or through the courts, where medical evidence and claims of negligence would be reviewed.
  2. If the resident believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have affected him, he may want to get independent legal advice about making a personal injury claim. We have, however, looked at any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors, and how it responded to his concern about his health.

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining installations for the supply of heating and water heating equipment.
  2. The landlord classifies repairs into 2 categories:
    1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be made safe within 24 hours
    2. Appointed repairs – all non-emergency repairs. These should be completed within 28 days

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty hot water cylinder

  1. In October 2023, the resident told the landlord that he suspected the hot water cylinder was leaking and that it was not keeping water hot throughout the day. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it was required to respond within the timescales set for either an emergency or an appointed repair. The landlord did not meet this obligation. Its records show that it raised a repair 78 days after the resident’s report, significantly outside its repairs policy timescales.
  2. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response, it did not explain the cause. The absence of an explanation suggests poor recordkeeping and inadequate oversight of its repair handling.
  3. Once the repair was raised, the records show that the repair was allocated to the wrong team, causing a further 58-day delay before the problem was picked up. This points to weakness in the landlord’s repair management and monitoring processes.
  4. The landlord’s failure to act within policy and to monitor the repair properly, meant the resident experienced prolonged uncertainty about a potential leak and continued problems with insufficient hot water. Given the extended timescales and lack of clear communication, it is understandable that, in his stage 1 complaint, the resident referred to his mental health condition and the heightened stress the situation had caused him.
  5. The landlord’s records show that a plumber attended the resident’s home on 11 April 2024. There is no evidence that the plumber investigated whether the water cylinder was leaking or tested the temperature of the water coming from the taps. Instead, a job was raised to replace the kitchen taps. While this may have been intended to deal with a separate problem, the resident’s original reports about the water temperature and cylinder were left unresolved. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns in full. It reflects poor case management and a lack of follow-through.
  6. It was not until 5 December 2024, over a year after the resident’s initial report, that an operative inspected the water cylinder and confirmed a leak, raising a job for its replacement. The landlord’s failure to diagnose and address the problem within a reasonable time fell short of its repair obligations and prolonged the resident’s experience of living with an unresolved defect.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed that an appointment had been booked to replace the hot water cylinder on 17 March 2025. Although the work went ahead as planned, this was 103 days after the job was raised, which significantly exceeded the 28-day appointed repair timescale and left the resident waiting far longer than the policy allowed. Still, we recognise that the landlord attempted to reduce the inconvenience caused. It explained the reason for the delay was due to operative availability and said that it would try to bring the appointment forward. Providing that context showed greater transparency and helped manage the resident’s expectations.
  8. We note that the resident’s initial report raised concerns about both a leak and hot water not staying warm throughout the day. While the cylinder replacement may have resolved the leak, there is no evidence the landlord checked whether the water temperature problem had also been addressed. Its records show that 2 days after the cylinder’s replacement, the resident reported that water from the kitchen taps was still not heating. At some stage the landlord should have tested the water temperature to satisfy itself, the resident and this service that the original report had been properly resolved.
  9. It is positive, however, that the landlord attempted to book a follow-up appointment for 10 April 2025 to investigate the water temperature issue. This was within its appointed repair timescales, but the resident requested an alternative date due to other commitments, and his tenancy ended before a further visit could be arranged. On this occasion, the landlord was not given the opportunity to complete the follow-up and resolve the complaint fully.
  10. To address the delays in replacing the cylinder, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process in February 2025. Its records show that it had also awarded £150 in November 2024 in relation to water pressure and the replacement of the kitchen taps. While these issues overlapped in time, they were treated as separate matters, and the November award is not considered part of the redress for the cylinder and water temperature failings.
  11. We recognise that the landlord’s offer of £150 at stage 2 of the complaints process accounted for the delay in replacing the cylinder. However, it did not sufficiently reflect the day-to-day inconvenience the resident was likely to have experienced from unreliable hot water at his taps. This amount also did not take into account that the water temperature issue remained unresolved even after the cylinder replacement. Taken together, we do not consider that the landlord’s offer of £150 provided reasonable redress for the overall failings.
  12. In response to our enquiries, the landlord clarified that the resident’s property was heated by storage heaters and that he had a separate electric shower not connected to the water cylinder. This indicates that, although the cylinder leak and low tap temperatures caused inconvenience, the resident was still able to heat his home and maintain basic hygiene. These factors reduce the severity of the detriment but do not remove the inconvenience identified above, which the compensation failed to reflect in full.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty hot water cylinder amounts to maladministration. The landlord fell short of its repair obligations on multiple occasions and did not provide adequate redress to acknowledge the prolonged inconvenience and distress the repeated missed timescales caused.
  14. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, we may order landlords to pay residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
  15. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150 compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty hot water cylinder.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
  2. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150 compensation, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.