Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sanctuary Housing Association (202451429)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451429

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 outstanding repairs affecting:
    1. Guttering, drains, and roof tiling.
    2. Heating.
    3. The kitchen.
    4. The shower.
  2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house that the landlord owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in early 2023. The landlord records that the resident has osteoarthritis and is vulnerable due to mobility and mental health conditions.
  2. The resident reported repairs to the landlord on an undisclosed date prior to it completing a property inspection on 15 September 2023. The landlord subsequently prepared a works schedule to address repairs affecting the guttering, drains, external pipework, and roof tiling. The resident reported heating repairs in November 2023 and shower repairs in July 2024. The landlord’s handling of repairs was the basis for the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 December 2024. He said the roof and the shower were leaking, the kitchen sink and gutters needed replacing, he had no heating, and a drain required repair. He said he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs as he had arthritis which the cold made worse.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 December 2024 and it sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 January 2025. It apologised for any inconvenience the resident experienced and it summarised its handling of the repairs he reported. It said:
    1. It completed a damp inspection in September 2023, prepared a report in October 2023, and scoped works to guttering, sills, doors and window frames in June 2024 and October 2024.
    2. It acknowledged the resident experienced delays and inconvenience, time, and trouble. It had escalated the outstanding works and arranged a surveyor’s inspection due to the time lapse and reports of water ingress.
    3. It raised works to repair the kitchen in October 2024. These were awaiting approval and it had chased this.
    4. The resident had not reported any shower or heating repairs since it repaired these in August 2023 and September 2024. It said its service had not failed as it was not aware of any further repairs.
    5. It offered £500 compensation which it broke down as £350 for time, trouble, and poor communication, £75 for any future impact of kitchen works, £75 for any future impact of roof, guttering, and soakaway repairs.
  5. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 7 January 2025 which said he was not happy with the landlord’s findings. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 January 2025 and sent its stage 2 complaint response on 28 February 2025. It apologised for its poor communication and its delayed response. It noted its complaint team had not monitored the repairs to completion as expected. Additionally, it said:
    1. It was unable to find evidence the resident logged some of the repairs within a reasonable time before making a complaint. It provided contact information and asked him to report repairs in the first instance.
    2. The resident had not reported a shower repair since 17 August 2023. It agreed to raise a new works order in its stage 1 response but as there was no evidence it raised the works it requested the repair again.
    3. It repaired the boiler on 27 September 2024 but the resident had not reported any further faults since then. It raised another boiler repair on 17 January 2025 which it attended on 20 January 2025. This was outside its emergency repair timescales. It quoted for further works on 3 February 2025 which were awaiting approval.
    4. It provided 2 temporary heaters on 11 November 2023 and he could send a claim for temporary heating costs using its online procedures.
    5. It raised works orders for kitchen repairs in July and October 2024. The works were outstanding but would take place on 8 May 2025. This delay was outside its service level agreement.
    6. It asked its contractor for an update on the works quoted for a roof leak, guttering, and drain repairs due to the time that had passed. It would update him later and its complaints team would track these repairs to completion.
    7. It offered £700 as compensation which it broke down as £400 for its poor repair handling, £50 for its poor complaint handling, £100 for future impact of kitchen works, £150 for future impact of repairs to the shower, boiler, roof, gutter, and drain. It said the award was inclusive of its earlier offer of £500.
  6. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. He said that to put the matter right the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs and increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file. While we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim he may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  2. In its final complaint response, the landlord told the resident he could claim for temporary heating costs using its online application procedures. The resident did so on 31 March 2025. The resident complained to the landlord about its response to his application and the landlord sent its final stage 2 response on the matter to the resident on 5 June 2025. It the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s final response to his complaint about his temporary heating costs he could ask us to investigate this by registering this as a new complaint. This investigation has looked at the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs in the property up to 28 February 2025.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs

  1. There were outstanding repairs from September 2023 that remained unresolved when the landlord sent its final complaint response, 30 months later. It has raised further works orders since it sent that response but the evidence shows that repairs are still outstanding.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the repairs has likely caused the resident significant, distress and inconvenience while living in the property. It has also caused him time and trouble pursuing the repairs and raising the matters as a complaint. While this investigation looks at the landlord’s handling of repairs overall, we have referred to the different repairs as subheadings for ease.
  3. We expect landlords to keep complete records of its housing services. When there is a dispute about repairs or the condition of a property, the onus is on the landlord to show how it completed repairs in line with its responsibilities. We have been able to assess this complaint based upon the evidence the landlord sent. However, there were missing emails, telephone call records, and repair records. The absence of evidence suggests poor handling of knowledge and information and poor repair handling.

Guttering, drains and roof tiling

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) says the landlord must keep the structure of the property, the drains, gutters, and external pipes in repair. The repairs handbook says it repairs roof tiling. It completed a damp inspection at the property on 15 September 2023. It found repairs to the guttering, downpipes, drains, and roof tiling but found no structural repairs causing damp.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor emailed a property report and a works order which listed the repairs as ‘urgent’ to its repairs team on 13 October 2023. The landlord chased the surveyor for the property inspection report on 3 occasions after the inspection. Given the surveyor classified the repairs as urgent it should have progressed them sooner instead of 20 calendar days.
  3. The repairs policy says it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and ‘appointed or routine’ repairs within 45 calendar days (or 28 calendar days for residents with a vulnerability). It was right for the landlord to inspect the property and raise a works order in line with its repair obligations. However, it is unclear what response time scale ‘urgent’ refers to. It should have classified the works in keeping with its repairs policy.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord progressed these repairs before the resident chased them on 25 January 2024, 3 months later. There is no evidence it acted on the repairs again until it raised another works order for the same repairs on 6 February 2024. This was not in keeping with its routine repair policy.
  5. The repairs policy says the landlord must keep residents informed of the progress of repairs and provide an update when it will complete the work. The landlord’s failure to update the resident and track the repairs it found – which it raised 4 months previously – was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident.
  6. The landlord approved the new works order on 13 February 2024; however, it did not visit the property until 5 June 2024. Again, this delay was not in keeping with its repairs policy. We can see no good reason for the landlord’s further delay given its qualified surveyor had classified the works as urgent. This was likely to increase the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident while living in the property and chasing the repairs.
  7. The landlord repaired the roof tiling during a visit on 5 June 2024. This was 8 months after it initially found the repairs. However, it concluded it needed a contractor to scope works to the guttering. This was unreasonable given its surveyor had already scoped the works in September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord progressed repairs to the drains, downpipes or guttering prior to the resident making a complaint on 16 December 2024.
  8. The landlord chased its contractor for a quote for the outstanding works on 3 January 2025 and asked for a further property inspection due to reports of water ingress. We have not seen a record of the reported water ingress. However, it is likely that the landlord’s poor repair handling contributed to the further disrepair and increased the detriment caused to the resident.
  9. There is no evidence the landlord completed the repairs listed in its works orders before sending its final complaint response on 28 February 2025. Consequently, the resident lived in the poorly repaired property without any further ability to effect the repairs the landlord handled beyond approaching us.
  10. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it was waiting for an update and a quote for the outstanding works and it would update him later. There is no evidence it offered the resident a sincere apology that appropriately recognised the significant inconvenience, time, and trouble its poor handling of the guttering, drain, and tiling repairs may have caused him.
  11. After the landlord sent its final complaint response its contractor confirmed it could not complete the works. Consequently, the landlord reassigned the works to another contractor. It is unclear whether these repairs remain outstanding.

Heating repairs

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord must keep the heating and hot water equipment in proper working order. Landlords must also make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must decide if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to consequences for everyone involved.
  2. The resident told the landlord his electric heating was not working but he had hot water on 8 November 2023. The landlord visited the property within 24 hours in keeping with its repairs policy for an emergency repair. The landlord did not complete the repair as it concluded it would need 2 operatives to do so.
  3. The landlord raised a works order to deliver 2 temporary heaters to the resident on 11 November 2023. This was in keeping with its compensation policy which confirms it supplies temporary heating for heating faults that happen between 1 October and 30 April. It also evidenced it had considered its obligation to prevent hazards such as excessive cold. It would have been better if the landlord provided the temporary heaters when it inspected the property, 3 days earlier.
  4. The landlord raised a works order on 16 November to repair the immersion heater noting the resident did not have any hot water. It told the resident it chased the heating repair the following day and it delivered 4 further heaters to the resident. This was reasonable to ensure the resident had an adequate level of heating, given he lived with his family in a 3 bedroom house.
  5. The landlord chased its heating contractor again on 21 November 2023. It is unclear when it reinstated the heating and hot water but there is evidence it repaired a faulty valve on or before 1 December 2023. This was 23 calendar days after the resident reported the repair. It was in keeping with its 28 calendar day target time for a routine repair for a resident with a vulnerability. As the landlord provided the resident with temporary heating this was reasonable.
  6. There is no evidence the resident reported a further heating fault until 27 September 2024. The landlord attended the property the next day in keeping with its emergency repair target time. It raised the thermostat temperature several times which reinstated the heating and hot water supply. However, the resident chased the heating repair 3 days later suggesting the landlord did not explain the cause of the fault was the use of the thermostat. The landlord’s repairs handbook contains advice about the use of thermostats. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer to the resident to this advice to satisfy itself he knew how to correctly use the heating system.
  7. The landlord completed an energy performance certification (EPC) of the property on an undisclosed date. The resident said he was waiting for the landlord to install a new storage heater due to the low EPC grading on 12 December 2024. It is unclear when the landlord told the resident it would replace the storage heater. However, it was reasonable for it to do so considering the low EPC. It chased its heating contractor for a quote the next day but it did not update the resident about the repair before he sent his stage 1 complaint on 16 December 2024. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s repair policy which says will keep residents informed about their repairs.
  8. The landlord asked its repairs team to raise a works order in response to the resident’s complaint about the heating fault on 3 January 2025. This was 18 calendar days after the resident complained and told the landlord he had arthritis which the cold made worse. Our guidance says housing associations must give “due regard” to certain equality considerations when carrying out their functions and those obligations in the Equality Act 2010. This means they must actively consider how their decisions and actions might affect people with protected characteristics, such as a disability. The landlord had provided a supply of temporary heating, which was positive. However, it would have been better if it discussed the resident’s health condition with him to satisfy itself it provided him with an appropriate level of care, support, and heating.
  9. The landlord reinspected the property on 15 January 2025 when once again it reinstated the heating by adjusting the thermostat. Once again, there is no evidence the landlord ensured the resident understood how to use the thermostat. Given this was the second time the landlord found the use of the thermostat to be the cause of the heating fault it would have been reasonable for it to have done so.
  10. The resident reported a further heating fault on 17 January 2025, which the landlord responded to on 20 January 2025. Its heating contractor explained it did not have 2 operatives available to respond within its emergency repair timescales. It was purposeful for the landlord to try to attend as soon as possible. Given it had supplied temporary heating this was reasonable. The landlord recognised this as a failing and provided compensation in its final complaint response. This was a resolution focussed approach for it to take. However, as it did not itemise the award it is unclear how much it intended to provide for this failing.
  11. The heating contractor sent a quote to the landlord on 30 January 2025 for an electrician and a plumber to replace the boiler. It replaced the boiler on 16 April 2025 after it sent its final complaint response on 28 February 2025. The landlord did find or reference the failings we have found in its final response. Nor did it acknowledge its delay in replacing the boiler. Consequently, it missed the opportunity to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repair handling. However, it referred the resident to its online procedures for the reimbursement of any temporary heating costs he had incurred. This was reasonable under the circumstances, given it supplied heaters while completing the repair.

Kitchen units

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it handles repairing kitchen units and worktops. The landlord first found a fault with the kitchen waste on 15 September 2023. However, it did not progress this repair which was inappropriate.
  2. The landlord raised a works order to repair kitchen cupboards on 2 July 2024. It inspected the property on 9 September 2024, 3 months later. It then raised a works order to complete kitchen repairs on 9 October 2024, which it added to a planned works programme on 16 October 2024. This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it completes kitchen replacements as planned repairs. There is no evidence it told the resident of this decision. Consequently, it missed the opportunity to manage his expectations about the works. This caused him time and trouble chasing the kitchen repairs on 22 October 2024.
  3. The landlord progressed a works order to renew a kitchen worktop and base unit on 27 January 2025. However, once again there is no evidence it updated the resident in keeping with its repairs policy. This says it would regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication. The landlord’s failure to update the resident caused him further time and trouble chasing the repair on 12 February 2025.
  4. The landlord notified the resident on 19 February 2025 that it would complete the repairs on 8 May 2025. This was in keeping with its repairs handbook which says it would contact the resident at least 2 months before the work begins.
  5. The landlord recognised its kitchen repair delays in its final complaint response and it offered the resident £100 as compensation for any future impact of the kitchen repairs. This was reasonable under the circumstances given the works were part of a planned programme and its failures related to poor communication.
  6. The landlord completed the kitchen works on 8 May 2025, after it sent its final complaint response. However, the resident reported an unresolved issue with the waste pipe on 16 May 2025. It is unclear whether this was the same waste issue the landlord found when it inspected the property 30 months earlier.

The shower

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) says the landlord must keep in repair installations for the supply of water and sanitation including sinks baths and sanitary conveniences. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will repair electric showers and water seeping between walls.
  2. The resident reported a shower repair to the landlord on 17 August 2023. The landlord noted the resident had a disability and only had a shower for bathing. It repaired the shower on 23 August 2023, 4 working days later. We have not seen evidence of this repair. It is unclear whether it should have repaired the shower as an emergency.
  3. The resident reported a leak from the shower on 2 July 2024; however, the landlord did not complete the repair until 8 August 2024. This was 9 days later than its 28 calendar day target time for appointed repairs. The landlord was aware the resident did not have alternative bathing facilities. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to complete the repair as an emergency. This was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident for an unreasonable amount of time, and further damage to the property caused by a leak between floors.
  4. The landlord incorrectly concluded the resident had not reported the shower repair since 2023 when it investigated his stage 1 complaint. It said it would raise a works order for the repair, which was positive. However, there is no evidence that it did so. This was unreasonable and was likely to cause further distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident pursuing the matter.
  5. The landlord restated the same incorrect advice in its stage 2 response. It missed the opportunity investigate further and correct this conclusion. However, this time it raised a works order the day after it sent its stage 2 response. The landlord did not repair the shower until 8 May 2025 and even then, the resident incurred time and trouble reporting it did not replace the leaking shower tray.
  6. The landlord repeated its poor repair handling when trying to meet the commitments it made to resolve the complaint. It offered £150 as compensation for its future handling of the shower repair. While this offer may have been resolution focused it was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience caused to the resident. Especially as he lived in the property with an outstanding shower repair since at least 2 July 2024, which is over 6 months.
  7. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress it offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
  8. The landlord’s repair handling was poor. There is evidence that it did not always raise, coordinate, and track repairs in keeping with is policies and procedures. It also did not clearly communicate the progress of repairs which caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. The cumulative impact of its failings increased the detriment caused to the resident.
  9. The resident occupied the property with only one shower that was leaking. This was likely to create significant bathing challenges for him, given his vulnerability. It also failed to complete heating repairs within a reasonable time. This meant the resident relied on temporary heaters between September 2024 and April 2025 which was unreasonable. The landlord missed the opportunity to manage his expectations about its handling of repairs. It also missed a chance to rebuild his confidence in its repairs service, such as by finding and referencing its failings in its complaint responses. It offered the resident £400 compensation for its repair failings and a further £250 for its future repair failings. Its compensation policy entitles it to offer financial awards when it does not meet its own service standards. It was therefore right for it to do so under the circumstances. However, the award was not proportionate to the cumulative detriment the landlord’s repairs handling may have caused the resident. Considering the level of failings and the unreasonable amount of time the landlord tried to complete the repairs we have found maladministration.
  10. The landlord’s failings had a significant impact on the resident’s use of the property and may have caused him time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience for at least 30 months while the repairs remained outstanding. Consequently, the redress needed to put things right is substantial. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £1,000 (bringing the total compensation for repairs to £1,650) as proportionate compensation for its repair handling failings. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. This level of compensation also reflects the fact that, due to his vulnerabilities, the delays in carrying out repairs had a more severe effect on him compared to other residents in the same position without his vulnerabilities.
  11. This award is separate to any compensation the landlord may have subsequently awarded for the temporary heating costs the resident incurred. We have also ordered it to apologise to the resident for its poor repair handling and reinspect the property and prepare a works schedule and timetable.
  12. Some of the issues identified in this case are like a recent case where we ordered the landlord to complete a review at senior management level of its practices around repairs. We are currently monitoring compliance for that case so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The resident’s complaint

  1. We note that the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response to the resident until 2 working days later than its 10 working day policy target timescale. Given the impact on the resident would have been minimal we do not consider this amounted to a service failure. However, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it:
    1. Did not register or acknowledge the resident’s email of 13 December 2024 as a stage 1 complaint. This caused him time and trouble raising the complaint again using its online complaint process on 16 December 2024.
    2. Said the resident had not reported the shower repair since August 2023. This information was incorrect as he reported a shower repair in July 2024 which the landlord recorded as complete on 8 August 2024.
    3. Said it repaired a heating faulty as an emergency within 24 hours on 27 September 2024. However, there is evidence the heating engineer could not complete the repair that day because it needed 2 operatives.
    4. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 6.9 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    5. Did not explain its understanding of the complaint in its stage 2 acknowledgement letter yet asked the resident to email within 5 working days if it misunderstood his concerns.
    6. Did not agree an extension date with the resident when it extended its stage 2 response date. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.9 of the Code. This says where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in this Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.
    7. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 7 January 2025 until 28 February 2025 which was 18 working days later than its complaint policy and paragraph 6.14 of the Code.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to find issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the repairs and missed the opportunity to work with the resident to improve the situation. It repeated its suggestion that the complaint team would track the repairs, despite acknowledging it had not done so following its stage 1 response. Even where the landlord found the cause for the repair delay, it did not offer any reassurance that the issue was temporary or that it was working on a solution. This investigation has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The landlord’s offer of compensation for future repair failings while resolution-focussed was unreasonable as it creates a barrier to its complaint procedures. The resident may wish to – and should be able to – express dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of matters regardless of its attempts to indemnify itself against these. Furthermore, the landlord’s offer of compensation for future failings suggested the landlord was not confident in its own handling of repairs matters, or its complaint handling procedures. The landlord could not foresee the extent of any detriment its future handling of matters may cause. Therefore, it could not be confident its award was proportionate to any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the resident may incur.
  4. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling. However, this amount was not proportionate to the likely detriment incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failings. The failings had no permanent impact on him but had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience they may have caused. We have ordered a further compensation award of £150 (totalling £200) below. This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also asked it to apologise in writing for its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Outstanding repairs.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its poor repair handling and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident the £700 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident an added £1,150 in compensation made up as follows:
      1. £1,000 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that the landlord’s poor repair handling may have caused to the resident.
      2. £150 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
    4. Inspect the property to assess if it needs to complete any outstanding repairs. If it needs to complete repairs, the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.

The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears, where they exist.