Sanctuary Housing Association (202452495)

Background

1. The resident signed the tenancy for the property in October 2024. Before signing, she raised concerns about the condition of the garden. After moving in, she also reported several internal repair issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports about the condition of the property when she moved in.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports about the condition of the property when she moved in.
4. We found 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 did not complete the resident’s repairs within the timescales set out in its policy, and one repair remains outstanding. It also did not communicate with the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within the timescales in its complaint procedure. However, it did not assess whether the additional issues the resident raised should have been included in the complaint or logged as a new complaint. It also did not address all points the resident raised at either stage of the complaint process.

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.

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.

7. Generally, we investigate issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because the landlord will not have addressed these events via its complaint process. However, in this case it is appropriate for us to consider events past this date of the final complaint response, which directly relate to the issues raised in the complaint.
8. The landlord’s voids, allocations, and lettings procedure says it will provide good quality accommodation and ensure a property meets the appropriate standard for lettings. It is reasonable that the landlord would complete an inspection of the property before a resident moves in.
9. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property, identified the works that might be necessary and undertook works to prepare the property for letting. When the resident raised concerns about the garden after viewing the property, the landlord arranged a further inspection. It then made additional efforts to clean the garden and the property. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take and in line with its void, allocations, and lettings procedure.
10. After moving in, on 4 November 2024, the resident reported repairs including a soft and sagging bedroom ceiling caused by a leak. The landlord’s repairs policy at that time said it should complete repairs within 28 days, later updated to 45 days. The landlord completed this repair on 28 March 2025, which was 144 days after it was reported. This was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
11. The resident raised concerns about the kitchen worktops on 12 November 2024. The landlord inspected the area on 9 December 2024, which was not in line with its procedure that says an inspection should be carried out within 10 working days of work being requested.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord then raised separate repairs for the worktops and the kitchen units, which created confusion within its systems. This did not show the landlord monitored the outstanding works effectively. Nor did it demonstrate effective record keeping.
13. The resident said an operative told her that the landlord would fit a new kitchen. The landlord has not disputed this. However, this miscommunication raised expectations that the landlord did not manage appropriately. It booked further works for 25 April 2025, but the operative who attended could not complete the job because the repair had not been correctly specified. This indicates further record keeping failures.
14. The landlord declined the repair in mid-May 2025 because photographs suggested a replacement kitchen was not required. It then arranged another inspection for 29 August 2025. While it was reasonable for the landlord to re‑inspect before approving any works, it should have arranged this inspection much sooner. The landlord’s repairs procedure says an inspection should take place within 10 working days. The landlord took more than 3 months to carry out the inspection, which was not in line with its procedure.
15. The landlord knew there had been miscommunication, that expectations had been raised, and that its void checklist had already identified the units as needing replacement. By delaying the inspection for several months in these circumstances, the landlord did not act proportionately or manage the issue in line with good repair practice. This contributed to unnecessary delay and uncertainty for the resident.
16. The landlord approved the works following the August inspection. However, further confusion within the landlord’s systems about whether it had granted approval caused additional delay. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord.
17. The landlord completed the repair on 7 January 2026, meaning it took nearly 14 months to resolve. The landlord’s policy says it should complete a major repair within 90 days. The landlord did not meet this timescale.
18. The landlord’s repair policy says it will provide regular updates through proactive communication. The evidence shows the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord for information. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided updates other than through its complaint responses. Given the evidence of miscommunication about the extent of the repairs and whether it had approved the works, this was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
19. The resident reported a cracked bath panel with sharp edges on 27 December 2024. The landlord completed this work on 7 January 2026. The repair therefore took over a year. This fell outside the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.
20. The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly asked the landlord for updates about this repair. While the landlord said it was waiting for approval to complete the work, it was still responsible for keeping her informed. The lack of evidence of communication does not show that the landlord followed its repairs policy.
21. The evidence shows that the resident reported a loose roof tile before submitting her stage 1 complaint. However, there is no evidence of when she first reported it. We also have no evidence from the landlord that it completed this repair. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
22. The landlord did not complete the repairs the resident reported after she moved in within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The delays to the kitchen repair and the broken bath panel were delayed due to miscommunication and ineffective record keeping.
23. The landlord also did not provide updates required by its policy, and the resident repeatedly had to request information. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord completed the repair to the loose roof tile. Therefore, the landlord did not follow its repairs policy.
24. The landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication in its stage 2 complaint response. These issues continued for around 6 months after that point, until the landlord completed the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord has completed the roof tile repair. Therefore, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
25. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for the delays and its communication. The time between the resident first reporting the repairs and the landlord issuing its stage 2 response was around 6 months. A further 7 months passed before the landlord completed the repairs. Given this, and because the landlord has not shown that its communication improved during this period, we order the landlord to pay an additional £350. This acknowledges the continued frustration and time and trouble experienced by the resident, using the way the landlord calculated compensation in its stage 2 response. The landlord should also apologise to the resident and make sure that it carries out the repair to the loose roof tile.

26. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The landlord sent its complaint responses within these timescales, it therefore followed its policy and the Code.
27. The Code says that when a resident raises additional issues during an investigation, the landlord must decide whether to include them in the existing complaint or log a new complaint. If the stage 1 response has not been issued and the new issues are related, they should be incorporated into the stage 1 response. If the stage 1 response has already been issued, the issues are unrelated, or including them would cause an unreasonable delay, the landlord must log a new complaint.
28. As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported a list of repair issues. The resident then mentioned these issues again to her housing officer and as part of her stage 2 escalation. These issues could meet the definition of a complaint in the landlord’s policy and the Code. The landlord should have considered whether to deal with these issues as part of the complaint, or to raise a new complaint. There is no evidence the landlord did this. The landlord did provide an update, but it did not substantively address the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to follow its own policy and the Code.
29. The Code says that a landlord must address all points that a resident raises in the complaint definition. It must provide clear reasons for any decisions. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord identified it had not addressed all the issues the resident raised in her original complaint. While identifying learning is a positive from the landlord, it then repeated this failing in its stage 2 complaint response. It did not address all of the points the resident had raised in her escalation. This was a failing from the landlord and means it cannot demonstrate its learning.
30. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in an appropriate timeframe. However, the landlord should have identified whether the resident was complaining about the issues she mentioned in her stage 2 escalation. Despite identifying learning, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it applied that learning and repeated the same failing. For these reasons, we find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
31. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident. We also order it to pay a total sum of £100 compensation for the identified complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £50. This offer is consistent with our remedies guide when the resident has experienced a loss of confidence in the landlord’s service.
32. We order the landlord to write to the resident to identify whether there are any new issues raised during her complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent. While many of its repair records were detailed and showed good practice, this investigation identified gaps in how it recorded key information. In particular, the landlord did not record important details about the kitchen repair and the approval of works. These gaps contributed to delays and made it harder for the landlord to identify mistakes.

Communication

34. The landlord did not communicate effectively. The landlord did not update the resident, explain delays, or give sufficient detail when responding to the resident. The resident has specifically mentioned this to us as a source of frustration. The landlord should actively monitor its approach to communicating about repairs, to ensure it reflects the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.