Sanctuary Housing Association (202233731)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233731

Sanctuary Housing Association

28 February 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 about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Repairs to the communal areas of the building.
3. Repairs within the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The evidence provided to this Service indicates the resident had been reporting ASB since, at least, January 2022 onwards. In January 2023 they had also reported that the front door to the building could not be locked and needed to be repaired.
On 5 April 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy that:
1. The landlord had not followed police recommendations to install CCTV in communal areas and ensure there was a secure lock on the building front door.
2. The landlord had not responded to previous concerns raised about housing officers.
3. The landlord had failed to repair the building’s front door which was unsecure and could be pushed open.
4. There were a number of repairs that needed to take place within their property and to the communal areas of the building.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023. It said:
1. It had reviewed the resident’s recent ASB cases and was satisfied the housing officer had managed the reports appropriately and in a timely manner. It said there was no evidence of poor conduct by the housing officer.
2. It understood an appointment had been arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection on 27 April 2023. It would raise any required repairs after the visit.
3. It could investigate installing CCTV within the communal areas but it would need to consult all the residents in the building. This was because there would need to be a cost added to the service charge.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 on, or around, 2 May 2023. They said the landlord had failed to address matters which had been going on for a long time. They further stated the landlord had made many claims that were not true and that it had not done anything it had claimed had been done.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 June 2023. It provided an update on repairs that had either been carried out or booked to be carried out since the stage 1 response. It said the resident had not provided specific examples of concern about the conduct of their housing officer, but had said the housing officer had failed to implement improvements advised by the police. It further said:
1. It had been unable to find any records of a formal request/suggestion from the police that it should install CCTV. It repeated that installing and maintaining CCTV would have cost implications and could not be done without consulting all residents. It noted it had recently given the resident permission to install a doorbell camera.
2. It had reviewed its handling of the resident’s ASB cases from 2022 onwards. While it was satisfied it had taken reasonable actions to resolve the cases, it had identified that it had not completed a vulnerability matrix in 2 cases. It could not evidence that it had contacted the resident within its stated timeframes (within 10 days of a new report). It also could not evidence that it had added the resident’s noise recordings to the relevant case.
3. It had noted there had been a delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint and issuing its response.
4. It apologised for its failings and offered £200 in compensation. This comprised:
  1. £150 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience due to poor communications, poor record keeping, and failures to complete relevant assessments.
  2. £50 for the delayed stage 1 actions.

Events after the end of the complaint procedure

The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on 22 June 2023. They said the landlord had not responded to all the matters that they had raised. They advised that the front door of the building could still be opened silently without a key.
The resident wrote to this service the same day (22 June 2023) to provide a copy of their letter and ask that the Ombudsman investigate their complaint.
The landlord issued a further response on 13 July 2023. It said that several of the matters the resident had included in their 22 June 2023 letter had not been in their original complaint. It advised it could not consider those matters as part of the complaint. It provided an update on ongoing repairs.
The landlord provided a further update about the ongoing repairs on 14 August 2023. It also increased its compensation offer to £400 due to the length of time the complaint had been open. The new compensation offer comprised:
1. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
2. £100 for complaint handling.
On 25 March 2024 the resident advised this Service that they had not been living in the property since September 2023. On 4 December 2024 the resident advised they were no longer a tenant of the landlord.
The resident has told this Service that, as an outcome to their complaint, they were seeking to improve the landlord’s processes for other residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB

In cases concerning ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states it would carry out the following actions when it received a report of ASB:
1. It would carry out an initial assessment to determine if the case should be considered serious.
2. It would contact and interview the victim within 1 working day for serious cases and 5 working days for all other cases.
3. It would complete a vulnerability assessment for the victim on all cases.
4. During the interview with the victim it would agree an action plan. It would confirm the agreed plan in writing within 3 days of the interview.
5. It would interview witnesses and the perpetrator (if appropriate to do so) as soon as possible and within a maximum of 10 working days.
6. It would keep the victim updated at least once a week.
The ASB procedure is also clear that it is the responsibility of all staff members to keep full and accurate detailed records of any contact, communications, and developments throughout the life of the case.
It is apparent from the landlord’s evidence that the resident had made a significant number of ASB reports. The evidence indicates that, in general, the landlord did carry out an initial assessment when each report was received. There is little to no evidence that the landlord then carried out the other actions required by its ASB procedure. This was not appropriate.
It is not clear whether the landlord has provided this Service with the ASB case details in the same manner as they are kept on the landlord’s systems. However, they do not provide a clear narrative of contacts, responses, or actions taken by the landlord. It has been difficult for us to clearly understand what action, if any, the landlord took in response to each contact from the resident. This suggests an issue with record keeping by the landlord.
While the ASB case details do indicate that the housing officer visited the resident on several occasions the records of these visits are brief. In some cases there is no information beyond stating that a visit took place. This is not in line with the landlord’s procedure and was not appropriate.
There is evidence that the landlord did take some actions to resolve reported ASB. These included joint visits to the property with the police and writing to all the residents to remind them of their obligations under the tenancy agreements. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether these actions were reasonable or appropriate. This is because it is not clear from the evidence provided:
1. What investigations the landlord had carried out,
2. Whether it had interviewed any relevant individuals,
3. Whether it had determined the cause/source of the alleged ASB,
4. What action plan, if any, it had agreed with the resident.
It is unclear how the landlord reached its stage 1 finding that the housing officer had managed ASB cases appropriately and in a timely manner. It said that it had investigated all reports and taken appropriate action. It also said the housing officer had always kept residents informed. It did not provide any evidence within its response to support these statements. In light of the lack of evidence provided to this Service it is considered that the landlord’s stage 1 response was not reasonable.
It is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response did identify a number of failings in how it had handled the resident’s reports. This was appropriate. However, there were other failings that the landlord did not identify. These include:
1. The lack of evidence that it had agreed action plans with the resident.
2. No clear, detailed record of interviews with the resident, witnesses, or the alleged perpetrators. There was also no evidence that it had determined that interviews were not relevant and/or appropriate.
3. Lack of full and accurate detailed records about visits that were carried out.
As with the stage 1 response, it is not clear how the landlord was able to reach a view that it had taken reasonable actions and resolved the reported ASB. There is no clear explanation how it believed that, despite the apparent missing evidence and having not completed required steps of its ASB procedure, it had been able to determine what actions were required to resolve the ASB and reach a reasonable outcome for all involved parties. This was not appropriate.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it had no record of the police advising that it should install CCTV in the communal areas. The resident has not provided any documentary evidence from the police to show that they had made such a request. It was also reasonable for the landlord to advise that any CCTV installation would have an impact on all residents’ service charges and would therefore need to go through a consultation process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response additionally explained that some reports made by the resident had been in relation to non-tenants of the landlord. It therefore had no jurisdiction to take action against them and advised that the resident should report such matters to the police in the first instance. It also explained that where the resident had reported ASB occurring to other parties it had been limited in how much information it could subsequently provide about what actions it had taken. While these were reasonable explanations for it to provide, there is no clear evidence that were provided to the resident at the time the matters had been taking place. This was not appropriate.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman therefore considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports.
The landlord offered £150 compensation which it later increased to £300. It is not clear whether this offer was entirely in relation to its handling of ASB or whether the landlord also intended this to cover other elements of the complaint. In any event, the Ombudsman does not consider the offered amount was sufficient redress for the landlord’s failures. This is because the landlord had not appropriately identified or addressed all its failings before making the compensation offer.
Given the significant period over which the resident had been reporting ASB and the lack of clear evidence that the landlord had acted in line with its procedure throughout, the Ombudsman considers an award of £400 would be proportionate for the distress and inconvenience the resident likely incurred because of the landlord’s handling of their reports of ASB. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure by the landlord who made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord will also be ordered to consider its handling of the resident’s ASB cases against its current ASB policy/procedure. It should assess whether any of the failures identified in this case could occur under its current procedure and what steps it could take to minimise this taking place.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building

The landlord’s repair policy states it will treat any repairs necessary to remove serious threat to health and safety of residents or property as an emergency. It will attend and make safe within 24 hours but may require additional appointments to complete all remedial works.
Any non-emergency repairs will be carried out at an agreed time with the relevant resident. It aimed to complete repairs within 28 days. Where this was not possible it would keep the resident updated on progress and when the repair would be completed.
The only ongoing communal repair that the resident included in their complaint was the repair to the building’s front door. We are satisfied that the resident was raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of this repair and that this was a complaint, rather than a service request. There is no evidence that the resident had made previous repair requests in relation to any of the other communal area issues they raised.
The available evidence indicates that the resident had initially reported the broken front door lock on 25 January 2023. The landlord passed it the same day to its contractor. It noted it was an emergency repair. It appears the contractor attended on 27 January 2023. This was outside the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
On 28 January 2023 the resident reported the door had been broken again by someone forcing entry. The landlord again passed this to its contractor the same day as an emergency repair. The contractor attended on 30 January 2023. This was outside the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 to report the contractor had attended but not repaired the door. The landlord followed up with the contractor who appears to have attended again on 31 January 2023. The contractor then reported back to the landlord on 1 February 2023 that it had been unable to repair the lock as the door was damaged. It said the landlord would need to repair the door and hinges before it would be able to repair the lock. There is no evidence that the landlord took any immediate action to secure the door. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
The landlord did not raise a works order for the required repair until 9 February 2023. It appears this was raised as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. The lock contractor also attended the same day to carry out the outstanding repair to the lock. The classification of the works order and the time taken to attend was reasonable. However, due to the delay in raising the works order there was 9 days between the landlord becoming aware of the repair and it completing the works. This was not appropriate.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord raised a works order for the front door as the electric latch had been wired incorrectly and the property was insecure. It is not clear whether it was a resident or the landlord who identified this issue. The contractor attended the following day. This was appropriate.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord raised a further works order on 3 May 2023. There is no evidence the landlord followed up on this repair until the date of its stage 2 response (8 June 2023). The landlord re-raised the works order as the contractor had advised they had never received it.
On 22 June 2023 the resident reported the front door was still insecure. The landlord advised in its 13 July 2023 response that contractors had attended on 13 June 2023 and identified that, while the lock was secure, the door frame needed repair. It is not clear exactly when the contractor told the landlord about the frame, but the landlord did not request a works order be raised until 13 July 2023. It did not raise the works order until 17 July 2023. The repair was reported as completed on 21 July 2023.
The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delays in carrying out a sufficient and lasting repair to the front door. It took approximately 6 months for the landlord to complete a repair that it was aware was an emergency issue. There is no evidence that it took all reasonable steps to either make the door safe or complete the repair within the timescales set out in its policy. This was not appropriate. There is also no evidence that the landlord took any steps to prioritise or chase up the repair once it was clear that it was significantly outside the expected timescales. This would have been a reasonable step for it to have taken.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building.
The resident needed to chase the landlord on multiple occasions before it completed the repair. It is also clear from the resident’s correspondence with the landlord that issues with the front door were contributing to their concerns about ASB and their security within their property. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused to them. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations like this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs within the resident’s property.

The resident reported the following repairs in relation to their property:
1. No trickle vents in the windows.
2. The drain for the sink and washing machine in the kitchen was still blocked despite promises from the landlord.
3. The landlord had not complied with building regulations when it had replaced the bedroom floor. The floor had been damaged by a water leak from another flat.
4. They believed a radiator leak was still occurring under the floor.
There is no evidence that the resident had previously reported the lack of trickle vents in the windows. The landlord has provided evidence that it had reviewed its repair records and, while it had previously attended repairs for the kitchen, bedroom, and radiator, it had completed all repairs in 2022. The resident had not made any recent reports of ongoing issues. The resident has not provided this Service with any evidence that disputes this.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to treat these matters as new service requests. It is noted the landlord arranged for trickle vents to be fitted to the windows on 7 July 2023.
In the landlord’s response of 13 July 2023 it explained that new building regulations only apply to new build properties. It had inspected the bedroom floor in April 2023 and could confirm it met the required building regulations. This was a reasonable explanation for it to have provided.
In the same letter the landlord set out the repair history for the blocked kitchen waste pipe as well as advising that it had not located any issues with the radiators. It had identified the boiler was showing a small pressure drop so had arranged to add leak sealant into the central heating system. These were also reasonable explanations for it to have provided.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs within the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It would issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If necessary, it could extend the response timeframes by 10 working days. It would contact the resident to discuss and explain any need to extend the required time and confirm this in writing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 6 working days after the date of the complaint and acknowledged the stage 2 escalation 8 working days after the date of the escalation.
It appears the resident had posted both their complaint and their escalation request to the landlord. There is no clear evidence about when the landlord received either item. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord accepted there had been a delay in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint. Given that the landlord took longer to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation, the Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to conclude there had also been a delay. This was not appropriate.
The landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within the timeframes it had set out in its acknowledgements. These had been in line with the times in its policy. This was appropriate.
It is noted that the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that there had been a delay in both acknowledging and responding to the stage 1 complaint. It is unclear how the landlord reached that finding. It would have helpful had the landlord provided details of the relevant dates to allow a clear understanding of its actions.
The landlord continued to correspond with the resident about their complaint after it had issued its stage 2 response. It also increased its offered compensation. The landlord therefore failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily when dealing with the complaint within its complaints process. It only did so over 2 months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
When providing its complaint responses, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clearly advised that it was treating most of the repair-related matters as new service requests. This would have allowed the resident to clearly understand how the landlord was dealing with the matters they had raised. It also would have provided them with the opportunity to clarify if they considered the matters were actually complaints. Providing this information would also have been in line with the landlord’s policy which states it would inform residents if it decided to not accept a complaint and advise them of their right to contact this service.
It also would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the information about the repair history at the resident’s property (as set out in paragraphs 52 and 53) at the earliest possible opportunity. The evidence indicates it was aware of the repair history and that there had been no recent reports at the time of its stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable to have included this as part of its explanation about why it was carrying out an inspection to identify required repairs.
There was therefore service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. As set out above the landlord made an offer of £100 compensation to the resident some time after their complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process. The sum of £100 is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which had no permanent impact on the resident. We have made an order that the landlord pays the resident the £100 offered if it has not already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs within the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £700, this comprises:
  1. £400 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB.
  2. £200 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building.
  3. £100 in recognition of its complaint handling failures.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must within 84 days of the date of this determination review its handling of the resident’s reports about ASB. It should identify all instances where it cannot satisfy itself from its records that it had acted in line with the ASB policy/procedure in place at the relevant time. It should then assess these failures against its current ASB policy/procedure to determine if similar failures could occur and what steps it could take to minimise this.
The landlord must provide a copy of this review and its findings to the Ombudsman to comply with this order.