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 (202449844)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449844

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 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:
    1. Reports of leaks.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a ground floor flat with her daughter. The landlord is aware that both household members have health issues and that the resident is registered as blind.
  2. Since 2021 the resident reported several leaks to the landlord coming from the flat above. The leaks caused damage in the bathroom and bedroom of the property. The resident made previous complaints to the landlord in relation to the issue, the last of which it responded to at stage 1 of its process on 18 January 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 June 2024. She said that her bathroom had been flooded from the flat above and there were still outstanding repairs from the previous leak. The landlord logged a new complaint as a result.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 June 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the leak and said it would complete the outstanding repair work. It offered £100 compensation broken down as:
    1. £25 for its failure to record her complaint on 2 June 2024.
    2. £25 for acknowledging her complaint outside of its published timescales.
    3. £25 in recognition of inconvenience and distress caused.
    4. £25 as it had cancelled repair work.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 September 2024. She was unhappy that it had not completed repair work nor considered that the leaks were ongoing in its response.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 November 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and having to chase it for updates. It gave a summary of events and said it had completed the outstanding repair work. It revised its offer of compensation to a total of £384 which comprised:
    1. £200 for time and trouble and the inconvenience caused.
    2. £184 for the loss of enjoyment of her home whilst repair work was completed.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She wants the landlord to complete repair work and consider that the issue is repeated and ongoing.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks affected her mental 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 and cause of any illness or injury. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court. We can, however, consider any likely distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Reports of leaks

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the installations for supplying water and sanitation in good working order. This includes pipework, basins, baths, sinks and toilets.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure in place at the time of the resident’s reports says it will:
    1. Attend to emergency repairs and make safe within 24 hours.
    2. Complete appointed repairs within 45 days, with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with a vulnerability.
    3. Complete major repairs within 90 days.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerable customer policy says that where it identifies a resident as vulnerable when reporting repairs, it will refer them to its wellbeing team. This team will track repair work through to completion and keep the resident updated throughout the process.
  4. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The evidence shows that between 8 January 2023 and 3 November 2023 the resident reported several leaks to the landlord from the property above. She complained twice within this period and said she was unhappy that numerous leaks had occurred over the past 2 years. While it arranged to complete remedial work on each occasion, it is unclear if a camera survey took place as suggested in November 2023. Its records also show that it experienced difficulties in arranging access to the flat above.
  6. On 3 June 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had returned home to find her bathroom had been flooded from the flat above. She said due to this the bathroom ceiling and walls were damaged and covered in dirty brown marks. There is no evidence to show that it raised an emergency repair in line with its policy, to investigate the leak, assess any hazards, or make the area safe. Given the history of leaks at the property and the resident’s vulnerabilities this was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord’s records show that on 6 June 2024 its repair co-ordinators contacted its housing management team as they were unable to contact the neighbouring resident to arrange repair work. The housing management team responded the same day after managing to get hold of the neighbour and requested the team arrange an emergency repair job to trace the leak. Waiting for this contact before raising repair work meant that the landlord had left the resident for 3 days without assessing the extent of the leak or any hazards that may be present in her property. There is no evidence to show that it kept her informed or updated during this time.
  8. The landlord raised 2 emergency repair jobs on 7 June 2024 to trace the leak and carry out an environmental clean. This was 4 days after the resident’s reported leak. Its records note that it called its out of hours contractor and requested they attend to trace the leak that evening. It failed however to update the resident of its action which led to her subsequently chasing it for updates the following day.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord several times on 8 June 2024 for an update on the situation. After speaking to its contractor, it found they had failed to attend to trace the leak due to an administrative issue. It is likely the landlord would not have realised this had the resident not chased it for an update. Although its repair records indicate the contractor subsequently attended the flat upstairs to trace the leak on 8 June 2024 it did not attend the resident’s property. This meant that 5 days had passed without any investigation of the condition of her home.
  10. Between 8 and 10 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times to chase the environmental clean. Upon contacting its contractor for an update on 10 June 2024, it found they were unable to send an operative due to staff illness. As a result, the landlord instructed an alternative contractor to carry out cleaning of the stained areas which was completed on 11 June 2024. Although the landlord explained this delay to the resident, we recognise that it was likely very distressing for her living with these marks on her walls for 8 days, particularly as she was concerned that they resulted from a leaking toilet.
  11. We have seen no evidence to show that the landlord considered making a referral to its wellbeing team in line with its vulnerable customer policy. Doing so would have demonstrated its willingness to tackle the issues faced by the resident and led to improved communication.
  12. On 9 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours response team to report that a downpour of brown sludge had come through the bedroom ceiling onto her whilst she was in bed. She said that she was unable to use the bedroom and therefore was unable to remain in the property. She told the landlord she was worried about what the dirty water coming through the ceiling contained. After some initial confusion regarding attendance, it responded by sending a contractor later that day to inspect the ceiling. However, it found no active leak.
  13. The landlord was unable to access the flat above for further inspection and said excess water may have been the cause of the leak. As this was not ongoing, it deemed it safe for the resident to remain in the property. It raised an emergency repair to attend on 10 June 2024 during normal working hours to investigate the leak.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours response team later that evening to report that water was dripping through the bedroom ceiling again. It said that as it had already attended and found no active leak it would not re-attend but would investigate the following day. Given the resident had expressed how she was vulnerable and distressed due to the situation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess the ceiling to ensure that it was safe for her to wait until the following day for repair work. Doing so would have offered her reassurance and demonstrated that it was listening to her concerns.
  15. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 24 June 2024, it said that it had completed work to resolve the leak on 10 June 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience and its delay in completing repair work to the bedroom ceiling. It said it had cancelled repair work to the bedroom ceiling following the latest leak to allow for drying out time. It also apologised for the further delay this had caused. It offered £50 compensation to the resident for the cancellation of the repair and the inconvenience and distress this caused to her. It explained that it would be in touch with her to arrange the outstanding repair work and that it would track and monitor this to ensure completion. However, it failed to explain, the cause of the leak or what it would do to prevent future occurrences. It also did not demonstrate that it investigated its repairs records to consider the frequency of previous leaks to her home.
  16. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 September 2024. She was unhappy that it had not completed the repair work to the bedroom ceiling, almost 3 months later. She said that the landlord had not recognised in its response that the issue was a repeat, ongoing one and that each time there was a leak there were recurrent issues with no access to the neighbouring property. She said that the landlord had failed to recognise the level of distress caused to her by the situation.
  17. The landlord attended to complete the repair work to the bedroom ceiling on 8 October 2024, 75 days later than its repair policy timescale of 28 days. The resident contacted it the same day and said its operative had not had adequate time to complete repair work and work to the ceiling remained outstanding. There is no evidence that it responded to this contact which likely left the resident feeling frustrated and ignored.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 19 November 2024 gave a summary of its response to the resident’s reports of a leak. It included action it had taken from 7 June 2024, omitting events that occurred from the resident’s initial report of the issue on 3 June 2024 up to this date. It apologised for its delays in completing repair work and its poor communication. It made a revised offer of compensation of £384. It apportioned this as £200 for the resident’s time and trouble along with the inconvenience caused to her by multiple repair visits, the repeat complaint issue and having to chase it for updates. It said the remaining £184 was for the loss of enjoyment of her home whilst it completed repair work.
  19. The landlord’s final response contained inaccuracies in its summary of events including incorrect dates of reports made and contractors’ attendance. It also said that it had completed repair work to the bedroom ceiling on 8 October 2024, which was not the case. Although it apportioned redress in recognition that the issue was a repeat one, it failed to give information on how it would tackle the recurrent access issues and repeated leaks. Given the vulnerabilities that it was aware of within the household, it would have been reasonable for it to recognise that it had not followed its policy nor adapted its service. It, therefore, missed opportunities to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
  20. In summary, while it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its delays, its responses failed to recognise the true extent of them due to the inaccuracies discussed above. It did not adhere to actions set out in its vulnerable customer policy nor carry out repairs within its policy timeframes. Its communication was poor and it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. At the time of its compensation offer, the matter was outstanding, and we are aware that to date it has not completed the repair work to the bedroom ceiling. As such, we have determined its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident and did not fully put things right for her. With consideration of our remedies guidance, we have made orders for it to pay increased compensation and complete specific actions to resolve the issues. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
  21. Following the landlord’s final response the resident has reported further leaks from the flat above. The landlord has told us that it has encountered access issues in dealing with these leaks, similar to those discussed in this report. It should give consideration to how it will address these issues either by referring to its repairs policy or through tenancy enforcement action. We have therefore made a relevant order below.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. While we are not assessing the landlord’s previous complaint responses, we note that its complaint policy does not specify an amount of time within which residents must escalate their complaints from stage 1 to stage 2. However, its response letter states within 10 working days. It should consider whether this timescale is restrictive. Given the resident had a stage 1 complaint response in January 2024 and asked to escalate this complaint about the same matter, it could have provided its stage 2 response rather than opening a new complaint.
  3. That said, the landlord responded to the resident’s latest complaint. There was a delay of 13 working days in acknowledging her complaint. It appropriately apologised in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation.
  4. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident, and not offset against the rent account, the sum of £600 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks (£334 offered in its stage 2 response can be deducted if already paid).
    2. Arrange an appointment with the resident to complete the outstanding repair work to the bedroom ceiling.
    3. Arrange to inspect the pipework and any relevant installations in both the resident’s home and the property above. It must produce an inspection report which:
      1. Confirms if there is any repair work required to the pipework or installations.
      2. Provide a schedule of required identified repairs and include a timeline for the completion of these works.
    4. Send a written apology to the resident for the identified failings. This must include an explanation for how it will manage any future reported leaks, how it will communicate to keep her updated, and consider her vulnerabilities to decide if she may require alternative accommodation in such events.
    5. Provide documentary evidence of compliance with these orders.

 Recommendations

  1. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pay to the resident the sum of £50 offered in its stage 1 response if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should consider:
    1. training to ensure that its staff follow its vulnerable customer policy and make appropriate referrals to its wellbeing team.
    2. Agreeing a single point of contact with the resident to help improve communication and any reasonable adjustments required.