Sanctuary Housing Association (202533771)

Decision
Case ID	202533771
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her elderly mother. There is a long history of gutter-related repairs. Following previous complaints, the resident raised a new repair in July 2025 related to the gutters leaking. The landlord replaced the gutters during the complaints process. She has said that the problems remain unresolved. She has asthma and other physical health conditions and said the situation impacted these.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Gutter repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the gutter repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord recognised failings in its communication with the resident through its complaints process. However, it continued to communicate poorly. It offered a proportionate level of compensation. It has not shown that it has taken all reasonable steps to rule out any ongoing problems with the gutters.
5. The landlord has offered proportionate compensation to address the impact of delays providing a hard copy of its stage 1 response, and shortcomings in its stage 1 acknowledgement.

 

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It should have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 May 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord should pay the resident £450 as previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused due to its handling of the gutter repairs if it has not already done so. It must provide evidence it has paid this directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 19 May 2026
3	Survey Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a survey of the gutters and downpipes. It should arrange this for a time where she is available so that she can point out the problems. This must be completed by a suitably qualified person. What the inspection must achieve  The landlord must ensure that it: Surveys the gutters and downpipes. If there are no clear visible faults, it should complete a water test to rule out any problems, such as the water bypassing the gutters, gaps, or alignment problems. Inspects the porch to determine whether the gutter leaks have caused damage, and if repairs are required. Inspects the property to identify any damp, and the likely cause. It should produce a written report with photographs outlining the findings. It should provide a copy of the report to the resident by the due date. It should explain its findings, confirm if work is needed, and provide the expected timeframe for completion where relevant. It should also assign a staff member as a point of contact to monitor this through to completion. It must provide evidence of its actions to us by the due date.	No later than 02 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident £75 as previously offered for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so. We found reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about bird spikes being removed from the property.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 September 2025	The resident complained as contractors had left her a note saying they had measured for new gutters on 23 July 2025 following her repair request on 6 July 2025. She chased the landlord on 20 August 2025, but it had not communicated with her, and the gutters leaked excessively. On 11 September 2025, she added that a different contractor contacted her to repair the gutters.
18 September 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it attended on 23 July 2025 to assess the work. Following her request for an update on 20 August 2025, it chased the quote. It passed the quote to its assets team on 29 August 2025 for further review. It re-raised the repair order on 15 September 2025 and would be in touch to arrange the work. It was unable to confirm the exact work at the time. It did not uphold the complaint. It considered it had acted within its service level agreements and made efforts to progress the work quickly.
18 September 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the gutters leaked excessively down the doors and windows. She was concerned that it had not completed any work or replacement since her repair request on 6 July 2025 despite knowing of household vulnerabilities. She said that she held the landlord responsible for any damage or injury. She said that the gutters had leaked for 22 years and repairs did not work.
30 October 2025	The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint because it did not: clearly identify the scope of the complaint in its stage 1 acknowledgement action her requests for a hard copy of its stage 1 response communicate effectively about contractor attendance, or whether it would repair or replace the gutters, which caused confusion It recognised a missed appointment on 6 October 2025. It confirmed it completed work to replace the gutter on 16 October 2025. It explained the work was classed as ‘major work’ and it completed this within its 90-day timescale. It recognised the impact of its miscommunication, and that the work had not resolved the leaks. The landlord said it asked the contractor to reattend and complete necessary work. It also said it would inspect mould in the kitchen and rot to the porch. It offered £200 compensation for her time, trouble, and inconvenience.
Events following the complaint	Between November 2025 and March 2026, the landlord increased its total compensation offer to £525 for the inconvenience caused by further delays, communication failings, and the future impact up until 26 May 2026. Contractors reattended in November 2025 to clear a blocked downpipe, but the resident continued to report excessive leaking. It attended on 16 April 2026 and reported that the guttering was in good condition.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remains dissatisfied and says that the landlord has not resolved the issues related to water leaking from the gutters and damage to her front porch. She has explained that the issues remain outstanding as of April 2026. She wants it to resolve the problems.

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 gutter repairs.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. The resident has made several complaints about the leaking gutters and issues related to birds and bird proofing over an extensive timescale. We are due to investigate previous complaints under separate case references. While the history provides important context, this investigation focuses on events from July 2025, and the landlord’s response to the complaint made in September 2025.

What we have investigated

7. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including gutters. Its repairs policy states that it would complete non-emergency repairs within 45 days or 28 days where there are household vulnerabilities. It would complete major works within 90 days.
8. The landlord took 100 days to complete work to replace the gutters after raising the initial work order on 8 July 2025. It attended to assess the work on 23 July 2025. This was in line with its enhanced service timescale of 28 days for residents with vulnerabilities. It then took 85 days to complete the gutter renewal on 16 October 2025, after identifying the need for major work. This was in line with its major work timeframe.
9. However, the landlord did not communicate effectively about the scope of work, its approvals process, or the expected timescales. This caused confusion and resulted in the resident spending time and trouble chasing updates. It acted appropriately by recognising its poor communication within its stage 2 complaint response and offered compensation. Its initial offer of £125 was proportionate to put right the impact of its communication failings at this stage in line with our compensation guidance.
10. In her communication with the landlord, the resident queried whether the gutter was replaced on 16 October 2025. She said contractors did not place scaffolding as intended. She also reported that the gutters continued to leak excessively in the same places as before. The landlord has provided evidence, including photographs, to show that the gutters were replaced using ladders on the day. However, it is unclear whether it replaced the downpipes as per the work order.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to reattend, reassess the works, and inspect the front porch following her reports this was rotting. It reattended between 6 and 13 November 2025, which was within a reasonable timeframe. It reported re-fixing and unblocking the downpipe. The resident has reported this did not resolve the problem. The landlord instructed a new contractor in November 2025. However, there were further delays and a lack of documentary evidence to support its actions. It reported struggling to obtain updates from contractors, and difficulties contacting the resident to book in an appointment, but there is no evidence to support this.
12. There is evidence to show that the landlord attempted to arrange a damp inspection in November 2025, in line with its obligations to address issues related to damp and mould. However, the resident said this should be left until it rectified the problems from the gutters. It was reasonable that it did not arrange this at the time at the resident’s request. Its communication records indicate that it found no damp prior to April 2026. However, we have not seen a clear record of its inspection.
13. The landlord acted reasonably by revising its compensation offer 3 times following the complaint to recognise additional delays in addressing ongoing problems. However, it recognised continued failures to communicate effectively in January 2026, and we have not seen evidence to support that this has improved. Its failure to improve indicates it did not take suitable learning from the complaint.
14. Given the history of the resident’s reports, and the longstanding nature of the problems we would expect to see clear evidence showing how the landlord had satisfied itself that it provided a long-term solution. The landlord reported that its contractors said the gutters were in a “good condition” following a visit on 16 April 2026. However, there is no evidence showing that it inspected the specific locations identified by the resident. There is also no evidence that it has inspected the porch as agreed. We are not satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to rule out any ongoing problems.
15. The landlord’s revised offer of £450 is proportionate to address the impact of its failures in line with our compensation guidance. This explains that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been maladministration by the landlord which adversely impacted a resident.
16. However, the underlying issue remains unresolved. The resident continues to report ongoing gutter leaks. It has not shown how it satisfied itself that there is no ongoing problem. We have ordered it to complete a survey of the gutters, including a water test where it finds no obvious faults, to identify any further work needed. We have also ordered it to assign a single point of contact to monitor this through to completion.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
18. The landlord took 13 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 between 1 September 2025 and 18 September 2025. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code. It acted appropriately by recognising that its acknowledgement on 5 September 2025 did not clearly set out the scope of the complaint. It also accepted that its stage 1 response was inadequate because it did not clarify the work it intended to complete.
19. The resident asked the landlord to send her a hard copy of the stage 1 response on at least 5 occasions, and there is no evidence to show it provided this until 30 October 2025, alongside its stage 2 response. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising its failure to respond to her request promptly.
20. The landlord took 30 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 between 18 September 2025 and 30 October 2025. The Code states that the landlord has 25 working days to acknowledge and respond to complaints at stage 2. If it needs more time, it must make the resident aware and should not exceed a further 20 working days. It notified the resident of the need to extend its response timeframe on 21 October 2025 and responded within the extension timeframe. This was in line with the Code.
21. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the inadequacy of its stage 1 complaint response, and poor communication. Its offer of £75 was proportionate to put right the impact of its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord did not provide sufficient inspection records or reports to show how it satisfied itself that the underlying cause of the gutter leaks had been resolved. In cases where residents continue to report problems following repairs, clear and accurate records help demonstrate what checks were completed, what conclusions were reached, and why no further work was required. The landlord should ensure it documents its inspection reports to support its decisions and demonstrate learning from complaints.

Communication

23. The landlord did not always communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It recognised this within its complaint and follow-on responses. It should make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.