Sanctuary Housing Association (202519802)

Decision
Case ID	202519802
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in the property, a 1-bedroom top floor flat, with her partner and 2 young children. She complained to the landlord that her property was reaching over 30 degrees Celsius in summer and said it was negatively affecting her children’s health. She asked for more ventilation as using fans was not improving the temperature. The landlord remotely monitored the temperature and recommended the resident continued to use fans, open windows and close the blinds. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions and would like it to do more to improve the situation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of excess heat in the property.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excess heat in the property.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found that the landlord:
1. Did not clearly communicate to the resident what it could do to improve the temperature.
2. Did not keep clear records of what options it had considered, including whether it plans to install solar glass.
3. Did not tell the resident what would happen after it installed temperature sensors.
4. Delayed sending a surveyor to the property.
5. Rejected the resident’s complaint when she first made it.
6. Did not explain why it accepted the complaint later.
7. Offered compensation for the surveyors delay but not for the complaint delay.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is in a format which considers any reasonable adjustments. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £175 made up of: £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused by its failure to clearly communicate how it would address the ongoing issue of excess heat. £75 in recognition of the complaint handling failures. This is in addition to the compensation offered during the complaints process. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date unless they request for it to go to their rent account. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Survey order The landlord must appoint a suitably qualified independent expert to survey the property. The survey should clearly show what, if any, improvements may improve the heat levels year-round. It should also consider whether there are any changes the resident can make to improve the situation. It must provide a clear plan of action to the resident and this service after the survey which includes the survey findings, and a timeline for any identified improvements to be completed.	No later than 13 March 2026
4	Resident update The landlord must write to the resident to explain: how it uses temperature monitoring data how often it will monitor the property what temperature it considers unacceptable what action it would take if the data continues to indicate excess heat.	No later than 27 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should ensure all complaint handlers are aware of the Code, and under what circumstances it may reject a complaint

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 April 2025	The landlord visited the property as the resident reported that the property was not properly ventilated. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend and consider replacing the cooker hood as it may improve the temperature when cooking.
17 June 2025	The resident called the landlord for an update and said again that the property was too hot. She said she was worried about the health of her family given the heat and humidity.
26 June 2025	The resident made her complaint. She said: the property regularly reached as high as 34 degrees Celsius with humidity over 90% her children’s health was suffering as they were feeling tired, nauseous and struggling to sleep her asthma was worsening the landlord had not installed the cooker hood as agreed a housing officer visited, but a surveyor had not yet been to the property she felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and there was no communication or plan of action she wanted the landlord to inspect the property immediately and consider installing air conditioning, a door to the kitchen, and a new cooker hood.
2 July 2025	The landlord rejected the resident’s complaint as it had requested works, within the correct timeframe. On 7 July 2025 the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
18 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it did not do any work to improve the ventilation due to delays with an external supplier. It offered £75 as a goodwill gesture for inconvenience, time and trouble. The resident responded the same day and escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She said that she raised the issue a year prior and there had been no progress. She also said that the temperature had reached 35 degrees Celsius in the time she waited for a surveyor, and the landlord did not inform her of any plans to improve it. The resident said that there had been a considerable impact on the household including increased electricity costs from running fans, her children feeling faint and being unable to sleep, and a worsening of her child’s eczema.
21 July 2025	An external supplier visited the property to assess what improvements it could make to the ventilation. It said that there were 2 extractor fans present in the property, and if it installed a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system, it would not improve the heat levels. They did not make any suggestions for improvement.
20 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: it apologised as it cancelled the order for the cooker hood as it would not improve heat levels but did not tell her. 2 inspections were cancelled with no notes to say why the external contractor did not give any clear recommendations for improvement it planned to install temperature sensors in every room to enable remote monitoring, and would improve the extractor fans it could not compensate for any impact on the resident’s health but would consider compensation for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. The landlord offered £300 to reflect the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. It also offered a £40 good will gesture to reflect the increased electricity from running fans all day and night. It promised to reconsider more compensation for the fans if the resident sent proof of increased electricity use.
20 August 2025	The landlord visited the property to assess the ventilation. It noted that the property was over 27 degrees Celsius at the time, and that all windows were closed. It said a fish tank and freezer in the living room may have contributed to the heat along with the closed windows. It noted that as the flat was on the top floor and south facing, this would mean it was more susceptible to overheating. It installed room sensors and switched the extractor fans to a permanent trickle mode on 26 August 2025.
19 November 2025	The landlord noted that the property had low excess heat and humidity owing to the time of year. It said it would consider installing solar glass to improve the heat in the summer and said the resident should keep windows open.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident is still unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the excess heat and feels it has not taken her concerns seriously. She wants the landlord to install additional ventilation or air conditioning, as she is concerned about the temperature becoming unbearable in summer.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of excess heat in the property
Finding	Service failure

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a duty to ensure that properties are fit for human habitation and free from hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies excess heat as a potential health and safety hazard. It considers excess heat to be internal temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius, which can increase health risks, including dehydration, particularly for young children. The landlord told us that it does not have a specific policy relating to excess heat and follows the HHSRS definition.
The lowest internal temperature recorded for the property, based on the evidence provided by the landlord, was 27 degrees Celsius in September 2025. In November 2025, the landlord’s internal records said that the property was “no longer excessively hot”; however, we have not seen temperature readings which confirm this. We note that November falls within a cooler period of the year, when reduced daylight hours and lower external temperatures would reasonably be expected to reduce internal temperatures.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of excess heat was slow. The evidence shows that several appointments were cancelled without recorded explanations. While the landlord later apologised to the resident, its records do not show that it acted at the time to improve its service.
There was an approximate delay of 3 months between the resident first reporting concerns about excess heat and the landlord installing temperature sensors and upgrading the extractor fans. This period coincided with the summer months, when excess temperatures had already been reached. The delay therefore limited the effectiveness of the landlord’s eventual actions in reducing the immediate impact on the household.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will carry out responsive repairs promptly, keep residents informed of progress, and maintain accurate records of actions and decisions. The landlord’s handling of this case did not meet these standards, as it did not assess the property promptly, its record keeping was incomplete, and it did not clearly communicate with the resident.
The landlord’s decision to install room sensors to monitor internal temperatures remotely was a positive step, as this provided an opportunity to gather reliable and objective data. However, the landlord did not explain to the resident how it would use this data or what action it would take if the readings continued to meet the definition of excess heat. We requested clarification on this point during the investigation, but the landlord did not provide it.
Throughout her contact with the landlord, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the potential impact of the excess heat on her children’s health, including the effect on underlying health conditions. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will consider any household vulnerabilities when considering what action it will take to resolve issues. While we cannot determine the cause of any ill health reported by the resident, the evidence does not show that the landlord clearly assessed or recorded whether it needed to adjust its response given the resident’s concerns.
The resident told us that the landlord advised her it could not install air‑conditioning because this would take up too much space on the balcony. There is no record of this discussion in the landlord’s files, nor any evidence that the landlord formally considered the installation of air‑conditioning as a possible mitigation. There is also no record confirming whether the landlord decided to install solar glass, or, if so, when this work would be carried out. We asked the landlord, and it told us it had not decided on solar glass.
We recognise that the design of the building, including the flat’s top‑floor location and the positioning of the windows, is likely to contribute to the excess heat in the property. These are structural factors that the landlord cannot reasonably change. We have also seen evidence that the landlord provided the resident with information about her options for moving to another property.
However, the landlord did not clearly explain to the resident what actions it could take to mitigate the excess heat, either in the short or longer term. It also did not keep adequate records of the options it had considered and discounted. These shortcomings in communication and record‑keeping contributed to delays in addressing the issue and left the resident uncertain about how the landlord was handling her concerns.
The landlord paid the resident compensation totalling £415, comprising £375 in recognition of service delays and £40 to reflect increased electricity costs. There is no evidence that the resident provided her electricity bills for the landlord to consider additional compensation. This payment partially acknowledged the landlord’s shortcomings.
However, it did not amount to reasonable redress because the landlord had not resolved the issue of excess heat and did not clearly communicate what further steps it would consider to improve the situation. Nor did it clearly inform the resident what it could not do, and why. As a result, the resident remained uncertain about how her concerns would be managed going forward. She is still concerned about the problem recurring in summer as there is no plan of action. She also worries that her children will be adversely affected.
For the reasons set out above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excess heat.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
Initially, the landlord rejected the resident’s complaint as it said it had not breached its repair response times. Five days later, it accepted the complaint, but it did not say why it changed its position. Under the Code, landlords must accept a complaint whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, even if the related service request is on track or already completed.
The initial refusal led to a 5-day delay in the complaint process, and the resident feeling that she was not being listened to. Once the landlord accepted the complaint, it responded within its policy timescales, but it did not apologise or compensate the resident for its earlier failure to follow its policy and associated delay.
For this reason, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records did not fully explain its decisions about what it could do to improve the excess heat. Its repair records did not explain why it cancelled some visits, and this led to delays and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord should consider how it logs cancellations and ensures it is clear to all staff, so its residents are fully informed.

Communication

The landlord did not clearly explain to the resident how it could support her and did not give timescales for when it would make decisions. This left the resident frustrated and eroded her belief in the landlord’s ability to resolve her complaint.