Sanctuary Housing Association (202504313)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a 4-storey block. She is diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis which the landlord was aware of at the time of the complaint. She complained about an ongoing leak. The source of the leak was from a flat above that was owned by the local authority (LA).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak

5. There was an initial delay in the landlord contacting the LA about the leak. It did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when offering a decant.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord provided multiple complaint responses which prolonged the complaints process. It was also unclear about what it could investigate which led to confusion.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will respond to all emergency repair requests to make a repair safe within 24 hours of receipt. An example of an emergency repair given in the policy is a water leak coming through the ceiling.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and that it will work with residents to make sure it diagnoses the problem at an early stage.
9. The landlord took ownership of the property on 24 March 2024 and therefore it was responsible for repairs from that date.
10. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlighted some of the issues that can occur when housing associations merge. Recommendations in the report include landlords undertaking a risk assessment regarding knowledge and information shortfalls before the merger. This is to ensure that residents are not disadvantaged due to landlords merging. However, there is evidence in this case that the merger contributed to the delays as the landlord advised us that it did not have direct control over the repairs or complaint resolution when the resident first complained and that the repairs records were stored on a separate system. This lack of oversight of information following the merger added to the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
11. The resident reported the leak in December 2024 and an operative attended within a reasonable timeframe. However, following this there was a delay in the landlord taking further action. This cost the resident time and trouble contacting it and the LA and making a complaint. Following the resident’s complaint in February 2025 there is evidence that the landlord contacted the LA in March 2025 which was an appropriate action to take. However, this was 3 months after the resident first reported the issue. This unacceptable delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she was living with the leak and resulting damp and mould for a prolonged period.
12. Further delays were then caused by circumstances that were out of the landlord’s control. These included the LA being unable to access the property where the leak originated and when they did access the property, they were unable to source the cause of the leak. During this time there is evidence that staff at a managerial level contacted the LA on a regular basis, which was appropriate.
13. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that it will provide a dehumidifier and that customers will be reimbursed for the cost of running this. However, despite an environmental health officer visiting the property and advising the landlord on 8 April 2025 that the damp readings were high in the bathroom we have seen no evidence that the landlord offered a dehumidifier to the resident. This failure caused her further distress and inconvenience because she tells us that the smell was unbearable despite her leaving the windows open constantly.
14. The landlord’s vulnerable customers procedure says that it will reasonably tailor its services based on the specific needs of residents. It identifies mental health diagnoses as a factor to consider which could signify a vulnerability.
15. The landlord offered the resident a decant to a hotel or compensation for her to move in with a relative, which was an appropriate action to take. However, she did not feel able to accept the offer due to her mental health diagnoses and pets. The landlord re-offered this at regular intervals. However, the resident advised us that this caused her further distress because she felt pressurised but unable to leave her home.
16. In July 2025, the landlord also offered the resident a management move, which was also appropriate. However, it told the resident she would be put on a waiting list and there was no guarantee what property it would offer. The landlord should have made this offer sooner and also considered how it could tailor its services in line with its vulnerable customers procedure, for example by considering whether other self-contained temporary accommodation options were a possibility. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. This failing caused her further distress and inconvenience.
17. The leak was resolved in August 2025. This was 8 months after the resident first reported it. There was an unacceptable delay in the landlord reporting the issue to the LA. Further delays were outside the landlord’s control. However, the landlord could have done more to alleviate the resident’s distress by considering whether other temporary accommodation options were available and offering a dehumidifier. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
18. The landlord did not cover this element of the complaint in the first stage 2 complaint response because the resident had engaged a solicitor. This error is covered further under the next section of this report.
19. The landlord offered £1,690 in a further stage 2 response dated 28 August 2025. However, although this action can be said to have put things right for the resident, it failed to resolve the substantive issue of her complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings or make the increased offer of compensation until the case had been accepted by us for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay the resident £1,800 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer for this element of the complaint.

20. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it operates a 2-stage complaint process. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code). However, in this case it provided 3 stage 1 complaint responses and 2 stage 2 complaint responses. This unnecessarily prolonged the complaint handling process and delayed the resident’s access to an investigation by this Service.
21. The first reason the landlord provided an extra stage 1 complaint response was because it opened a new complaint in April 2025. It said it did this “following the merger”. However, the merger had taken place over a year previously in March 2024. It is therefore unclear why the landlord opened another complaint, especially as the resident had already complained to and received responses directly from it.
22. Another reason the landlord gave for providing an extra stage 1 complaint response was that the resident had provided further new information. However, we can see no new information in the resident’s escalation request dated 17 April 2025. This error cost the resident time and trouble escalating the complaint again.
23. There was confusion about what the landlord’s complaint’s team could investigate. In the stage 1 complaint response dated 22 May 2025 it said that it could not investigate issues prior to 1 April 2025 when it took over the repair responsibility for the property. However, it had covered this issue in its previous responses. It then confirmed that this was incorrect advice in its first stage 2 complaint response dated 2 June 2025. This confusion meant that the landlord did not fully investigate the issue in May 2025, if it had done so it might have used the complaints process to resolve the issue sooner.
24. The landlord’s complaints policy says that there are some circumstances when it is not appropriate to record a complaint. An example given for this is when legal proceedings have started. The Code clarifies that legal proceedings are defined as details of the claim such as the claim form having been filed at court.
25. In the first stage 2 response dated 2 June 2025 the landlord said that it would not investigate the repairs side of the complaint because the resident had started legal proceedings. However, it has since advised us that this was an error because “the case had not formally entered legal proceedings”. The resident’s solicitor has confirmed that the claim was not filed in court. This error meant that the landlord missed another opportunity to use the complaints process to help resolve the repair issue, and to provide the resident with answers. This caused her further distress and cost her further time and trouble because she escalated the complaint to us. The landlord was also not fully transparent in its explanation for the reason it was completing a second stage 2 complaint response at the time.
26. In summary, the landlord prolonged the complaints process by providing multiple complaints responses and there was confusion in what it could investigate. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It offered £200 at stage 2 of the complaints process and a further £100 in its second stage 2 complaint response. However, as previously explained a finding of reasonable redress is not valid in such circumstances. Therefore, we have made an order for it to pay the resident £400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should review the Spotlight report on knowledge and information management and ensure that it follows the recommendations given regarding future mergers.

Communication

28. There was an initial lack of communication regarding the repair. Its communication during the complaints process was also poor with conflicting information given in complaints responses.