Sanctuary Housing Association (202313625)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313625

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining 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 submitted 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path to her property.
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 11 October 1999. The landlord is a housing association. The property has 2 bedrooms. The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident said she had a back condition and a mental health condition.
On 13 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was an authorised off-road (SORN) car parked in the communal car park in front of her path. She reported the car again to the landlord on 21 February 2022. She received no response from the landlord. The resident reported the car again on 5 June 2023. She said she had to walk on mud and grass to get to her property as the car blocked access to her path.
On 10 July 2023, the resident said she was not happy with the action the landlord had taken. She contacted us and on 26 September 2023 we asked the landlord to respond to her complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2023. It said:
1. the local authority could not remove the car as it was on private land. It said it could not remove the car either.
2. it was working with the neighbour regarding a breach of their tenancy agreement which stated they must keep parking spaces clear of untaxed or unroadworthy vehicles.
3. it could not confirm the reason for the delay in removing the car as it was of a sensitive nature.
4. it had sent the neighbour another letter and was taking proportionate action according to its policies to address the breach of tenancy.
5. it would update the resident if this took longer than was acceptable.
6. it partially upheld the complaint as it had previously told the resident the car would be moved.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2023. She said:
1. she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling, and she had raised a complaint on 5 June 2023.
2. the landlord had given her incorrect information.
3. she had to walk on mud when accessing the property with a walking aid.
4. she had to replace her carpet as it had mud on it.
5. she was unhappy that it had not given a timeframe for the car to be moved.
6. she was requesting compensation for stress, time, having to contact the landlord multiple times and the carpet.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 19 December 2023. It said:
1. the car was in a communal car park and the resident could access the property without standing on grass. It did not uphold this element of her complaint.
2. it apologised for not responding to the resident’s contact in 2021 and 2022 or responding to her within its set service standard of 5 working days.
3. the car was SORN, must be kept on private land and the DVLA had no authority to remove it.
4. it owned the land but could not remove the car.
5. the issue was about the neighbour’s breach of tenancy.
6. accepted the car had not moved, and the landlord had delayed in taking action. It upheld this element of her complaint.
7. it apologised for a lack of contact, providing poor information and not escalating her complaint when she asked it to.
8. the car had since been moved.
9. it offered £150 for the time taken to address the tenancy breach and poor communication. It offered £200 for failure to escalate her complaint.
In referring the complaint to this Service on 19 December 2023, the resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said the matter had caused her distress, and to feel her landlord was not listening to her. She wanted compensation for her carpet.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path

The landlord said the neighbour’s tenancy agreement stated that they must keep car parking spaces clear of untaxed or unroadworthy vehicles.
The resident’s handbook says that if the landlord believes a vehicle has been abandoned or is untaxed it will:
1. attempt to contact the owner to tell them to remove it.
2. take steps to remove the vehicle if it cannot contact the owner or they are unwilling to remove it.
The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 permits a landlord to attach a legal document (a tort notice) to an item that is believed to have been abandoned on its grounds and then arrange for the disposal of the abandoned item if the notice is not acted upon or the item removed.
The landlord’s tenancy management procedure says if a customer does not collect their belongings it works within the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. It says it will:
1. evidence steps taken to contact the customer.
2. work with customers so they can collect their belongings as soon as possible.
3. ensure appropriate support to enable customers to remove, store or dispose of belongings themselves.
When the resident reported the car on 13 November 2021, she said it was parked in front of her path in a communal car park. She said it was SORN, had been left there for years and looked abandoned. She said she did not think it was allowed on the landlord’s property, and it had told her it would investigate this. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns, which was unreasonable. The resident asked the landlord to contact her about the car again on 21 February 2022. The landlord did not respond, which was unreasonable.
The resident reported the car again on 5 June 2023. She said:
1. she had been complaining about the car being in the communal car park for 10 years. She said it was rusty and broken down.
2. she had to walk along mud and grass to access her property as the car blocked access to her path.
3. she wanted the landlord to take action.
As the landlord said it owned the communal car park, it would have been reasonable for it to assess whether the owner was permitted to park the car there, and what actions were available to it if they were not. It told the resident on 9 June 2023 it would ensure the car was made roadworthy or removed. This suggests it carried out this assessment and decided on the appropriate action, which was reasonable.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to also address the resident’s reported access issues. It did not do so, despite the resident sending photos on 28 June 2023 which she said showed the car caused her difficulty accessing her property. This was unreasonable.
The landlord told the resident on 3 July 2023 that the owner of the car was due to move the car on 10 July 2023. It said it would update the resident every 2 weeks. It did not do this, which was unreasonable.
On 10 July 2023, the resident told the landlord the car had not been moved and requested compensation as she had to walk on the mud or grass. On 13 July 2023, the landlord relayed to the resident reasons the neighbour had given for being unable to remove the car. This included police involvement and that they had lost the keys. We do not have enough evidence to be able to assess whether this information was correct or whether the landlord’s actions in relation to it were reasonable.
The landlord also said the car was SORN and not on a public highway. It said this superseded the neighbour’s tenancy agreement which did not allow them to park untaxed vehicles on the landlord’s property. This was likely to be confusing, given that the resident’s handbook says if the landlord believes a vehicle is abandoned or is untaxed it will contact the owner to remove it or remove it itself.
On 13 July 2023, the resident said that visitors could not access the property using a walking aid or buggy without going on the mud or grass. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s reported access issues. That it did not was unreasonable.
On 14 July 2023, the resident said she thought the parked car was a breach of the neighbour’s tenancy. The landlord said it would speak to the neighbour and ask them to move the car to another space. It failed to respond to the resident’s reported access issues or confirm its position on the car for a further 2 months which was unreasonable. On 28 September 2023, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the car was parked in breach of the neighbour’s tenancy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response:
1. it was reasonable for it to confirm the action it had taken to address the neighbour’s breach of tenancy and ask them to move the car.
2. given its powers under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, and the process of removing abandoned or untaxed vehicles detailed in its resident’s handbook, it may have been confusing to say it could not remove the car.
3. it would have been in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right, for the landlord to set out planned actions and timescales to the resident.
4. it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it had told the resident the car would be moved.
5. it was unreasonable for the landlord not to address the resident’s concerns about accessing her property.
6. given that the resident had requested compensation, and it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint, it would have been in line with our dispute resolution principle of putting things right for the landlord to consider offering redress to the resident.
The landlord said it spoke to the neighbour about their car on 11 October 2023. It wrote to them about a breach of their tenancy and asked them to move the car by 5 November 2023. This was in line with its resident’s handbook and tenancy management procedure. The landlord contacted the neighbour again on 9 November 2023. On 13 November 2023, it extended the deadline for the neighbour to move the car until 27 November 2023. It said it would then start the procedure to move it.
We do not have enough evidence to be able to assess whether the extension was proportionate. However, the landlord said it received correspondence from the neighbour confirming they were not refusing to move the car. It was therefore in line with its resident’s handbook and tenancy management procedure for the landlord not to remove the car at this stage.
The resident sent the landlord a receipt for her carpet in support of a request for compensation on 14 November 2023. On the same day, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed the deadline it had given the neighbour to move the car. It said the car was not obstructing her path and it was not responsible for a muddy carpet as the resident had chosen to walk on the muddy grass. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident and respond to her reported access issues and request for compensation. However, it was unreasonable for it not to address the resident’s reported use of walking aids.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it may have been confusing for it to repeat that it could not remove the car. It was in line with our dispute resolutions of be fair and put things right for it to apologise for not responding to the resident in 2021 and 2022, not responding to her within set response times, and providing poor information. It was also reasonable for it to apologise for its delayed response to the neighbour’s tenancy breach.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 and:
1. sent a video which she said showed she could not avoid walking on the grass as bins and litter blocked another walkway.
2. said she had a back condition.
3. said the car had not moved.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord said:
1. it was reasonable for cars to park in the communal car park. It would not offer compensation for the carpets as there were other access routes.
2. it considered the bins and litter making access more difficult and said it had arranged for the landlord to remove them.
3. the car had moved by 9 January 2024. It apologised for the delay.
4. it offered an additional £100 for the substantive complaint.
It was in line with our dispute resolution principle of put things right for the landlord to ensure the car was moved. It was in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair for it to consider additional factors that may have increased the impact on the resident and consider further compensation. However, it did not address the impact of the resident’s reported back condition which was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord:
1. failed to respond to the resident’s requests about the car in 2021 and 2022.
2. provided confusing information to her about the car and the actions it could take.
3. failed to update the resident as agreed.
4. delayed in acknowledging or acting on the neighbour’s breach of tenancy.
5. repeatedly failed to address the resident’s reported access issues.
6. failed to consider the impact of the resident’s reported use of a walking aid on her access issues.
The resident said she spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord. She said she felt ignored by the landlord. She said she had to increase her medication as a result.
The landlord identified and apologised for multiple communication failures and the delay in acting on the neighbour’s tenancy breach. It attempted to put things right by offering redress. It increased this when the resident informed it of additional aggravating factors. However, it did not show learning from the substantive complaint in line with our dispute resolution principle of learn from outcomes. It also did not address the impact of the resident’s reported use of a walking aid on her access to the property.
We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path to her property. We have ordered the landlord to pay the £150 it offered in its stage 2 response, the £100 it offered on 30 January 2024, and an additional £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path to her property. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.
We have ordered the landlord to set out its learning from the failures identified. We have also ordered the landlord to set out its position on whether the resident’s reported back conditions and use of an aid to access the property impact the outcome of her request for compensation for her carpet. We have also recommended that the landlord updates its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy said the following, which complied with the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code):
1. it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about its service standards.
2. it operates a 2-stage complaints process.
3. it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
4. it will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of escalation.
5. if it does not accept a complaint, it will explain why and advise of the resident’s right to contact the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s complaints policy said it may not record initial contact chasing a service request, as a complaint. However, it said it must log a complaint if it cannot offer a satisfactory resolution at the time of contact, or if the customer asks.
On 5 June 2023, the resident said she had been complaining about the car parked outside her path for 10 years and said she wanted the landlord to take action. The landlord treated this as a service request. On 13 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update on her complaint. Given that the resident was expressing dissatisfaction at the landlord’s inaction, and that the resident wished to raise a complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider logging a complaint at this stage.
On 3 July 2023, the landlord told the resident the car was due to be moved on 10 July 2023 and noted that the resident could raise a complaint if it had not moved. On 10 July 2023, the resident said the car had not moved and repeated that she wanted to raise a complaint. The landlord did not log a complaint which was not appropriate and showed an obstructive complaint handling process.
The resident contacted us and on 26 September 2023 we asked the landlord to respond to her complaint by 3 October 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy, which was unreasonable. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 October 2023, around 3 months after it should have raised a complaint. This was unreasonable.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 October 2023. The landlord said it closed her complaint. She resent her escalation request on 10 November 2023 and requested an update on 13 November 2023. On 14 November 2023, the landlord said it would not escalate her complaint as it had not given a date by which the car would be moved, and it had kept her updated weekly. That the landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint obstructed access to its complaints process and this Service. This was unreasonable and further demonstrated an obstructive complaint handling process.
The resident chased the landlord again on 21 November 2023 and contacted us. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 27 November 2023. It issued a stage 2 response 49 working days after the resident requested to escalate her complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and was not in line with its complaints policy.
In its stage 2 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for obstructing the escalation of the resident’s complaint and to offer redress.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 19 December 2023, the resident reported that the car had not moved. The landlord agreed to respond by 15 January 2024. She chased a response, and it agreed to respond by 29 January 2024. On 30 January 2024 it apologised for the delayed response and offered an additional £50 for its complaint handling. This was in line with its compensation policy.
However, the resident had to contact the landlord multiple times to chase and repeat requests to raise and escalate her complaint. There were significant delays and obstruction in the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident had to involve this Service at both stages of her complaint.
Although the £200 compensation offered at stage 1 and £50 offered on 30 January 2024 was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for its failure to log a complaint at stage 1.
We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and have recommended that it provides training for its staff on the definition of a complaint and when a complaint should be logged. The landlord should reoffer the compensation for its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path to her property.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology for the failures identified in this investigation.
2. write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
3. write to the resident and set out its position on whether her reported back conditions and use of an aid to access the property impact the outcome of her request for compensation for her carpet.
4. pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, made up of:
  1. the £150 it offered in its stage 2 response, the £100 it offered on 30 January 2024, and an additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour’s car blocking the path to her property.
  2. the £200 it offered in its stage 2 response, and the £50 it offered on 30 January 2024 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. the landlord may deduct £500 from the compensation if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord updates its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
We recommend that the landlord provides training to its staff on the definition of a complaint and when it should log a complaint.