Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202230351)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230351

Sanctuary Housing Association

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering and facia board.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and lives in a house.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 and reported a hole in the facia board at the front of the property. The landlord attended, blocked the hole, and raised an asbestos test to identify if asbestos needed removing before further works could take place.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in March 2022 to chase it about the progress with the repairs to the facia board and guttering. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 22 June 2022. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and it did not follow up after blocking the hole the year before. She reported there was mould growth on the ceilings of the bedrooms and when it rained heavily water would run down the outside walls.
  5. The landlord inspected the property on 11 July 2022 and identified issues with the guttering and facia board were likely causing the issues with mould inside. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on the same day and said:
    1. Its contractor had inspected the facia board at the front of the property, in May 2022, and given it a quote. The resident had then queried about the rear of the property on 22 June 2022, and it had raised a further inspection.
    2. It would follow up with the resident once the inspection had taken place.
    3. It apologised for the delay in progressing with the matter, and said it would take the delay “into account” when issuing its “final response/offer”.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 July 2022 and said it has now received a quote for the works. It said it would give an update about proposed dates for the works. The repairs did not go ahead at that time and the landlord raised an asbestos survey in October 2022. The repairs did not go ahead at that time.
  7. The landlord completed works to the rear facia board in July 2023. Following an intervention from us, the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response on 31 July 2023, and said:
    1. It offered its “sincere apologies” for its handling of the repairs, and the inconvenience experienced due to its handling of the repairs.
    2. The need to complete an asbestos survey delayed the works, and a “miscommunication” about what works were needed also contributed to the delay.
    3. Its records showed it had completed some of the repairs in the week beginning 24 July 2023. It had arranged a follow up appointment for 3 August 2023 due to concerns raised by the resident.
    4. It offered a total of £1,280 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £300 for errors in its complaint handling.
    5. It asked the resident to provide evidence in support of her claim for the costs of redecoration.
  8. Following the resident supplying evidence, the landlord made an offer of compensation of £717.75 towards the costs of redecoration.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord removed asbestos at the front of the property on 1 September 2023.
  2. The landlord attended to completed works to the guttering at the rear of the property on 6 October 2023. The resident was unhappy with the quality of works. The landlord reinspected on 24 November 2023 and reported “not satisfactory and poor workmanship”.
  3. The resident contacted us on 23 January 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the repairs were still outstanding despite the landlord saying it would all be done by October 2023 in its final response.
  4. The landlord completed further inspections in January and February 2024. It is unclear what works went ahead at that time. The landlord completed mould treatment works inside the property on 9 April 2024.
  5. The landlord contacted us on 11 July 2024 and said it had to recall the contractor to complete further external works. It said it would be revisiting its offer of compensation once the works were completed.
  6. The external guttering works went ahead on 24 September 2024.
  7. The landlord contacted us in May 2025 and said the resident had recently informed it the mould had returned. It said is was planning a “full inspection” of the property on 29 May 2025. It said it would revisit its offer of compensation on or before 6 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering and facia board

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure states it will complete emergency repairs to ‘make safe’ within 24 hours. It says it aims to complete all “appointed repairs” within 28 days.
  3. The landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this we have increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
  4. The evidence shows when the resident reported a hole in the facia board in April 2021 the landlord attended within a reasonable period. The landlord accepted, in its final complaint response, it did not appropriately follow up on this repair. The evidence supports this conclusion, and this was a failing in its handling of the matter. We acknowledge the landlord did not assess its handling of the repair at this time as it occurred more than 6 months before the resident complained. This was in line with the approach set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
  5. However, we have since updated the Code to say a landlord should look at the preceding 12 months. We have therefore not found this as a failing as it was in line with the Code at the time. However, we would expect future complaint responses to consider the 12 months preceding the complaint.
  6. Once the resident raised her concerns about the repair again in March 2022 the landlord did not progress with the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. By the time of its stage 1 complaint response, in July 2022 it had not progressed with the repairs. This was unreasonable. While we acknowledge it had inspected, the matter was still outstanding. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions of the guttering, and the impact on the inside of her property. The landlord’s failure to progress within a reasonable timeframe may have increased the distress she experienced.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it would revisit the issue once the repairs were resolved. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it wanted to offer compensation once the full picture of the delay was clear. This was a reasonable approach to take. It is worth noting the reasonableness of its decision to issue multiple stage 1 follow up responses are addressed in the complaint handling section of this assessment.
  8. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response there were further delays in progressing with the repair. We acknowledge the need to complete asbestos testing in November 2022 contributed to the delay and complexity of the repair. However, the evidence shows it dd not progress with the repair until July 2023, a year after its stage 1 response. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. She was caused a further inconvenience by the need to repeatedly chase the landlord about the progress on the repairs during this period.
  9. The landlord attended to complete mould treatment works in March 2023. This inconvenienced the resident, as it was unable to do the works until the external works were completed. This repairs visit is evidence the landlord’s communication and coordination of the repair were poor. This added to the inconvenience the resident had already experienced.
  10. The landlord completed works to the rear facia board and guttering in July 2023. It did not complete works to the front despite setting out that it would in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident was inconvenienced by this. We have seen evidence the resident was still chasing the external works to the front in September 2023.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a detailed explanation about the repairs and the cause of the delays. This was appropriate and showed transparency and learning. This is evidence it sought to build trust with the resident. We welcome the offer of compensation it made at the time to try and put right its evident failings. We also welcome the fact it offered compensation for “future impact” as it was yet to complete the repairs, but they were booked in. Had the repairs been done within the timeframes set out in the response, the offers would have been appropriate to put things right. As the repairs did not go ahead within the proposed timeframes this impacts on the degree to which its final offer of compensation put things right.
  12. After the resident supplied the evidence it had requested, in August 2023, the landlord offered the amount she had requested to cover the costs of redecoration. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it gave her request due consideration.
  13. The landlord completed internal damp treatment works in April 2024, which the resident confirmed with us in August 2024. This was 9 months after its final complaint response and a further unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the presence of mould inside her property. The further delay may have increased the distress she experienced.
  14. The external works were not fully completed until September 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and well over a year after the landlord’s final complaint response. Despite telling us it would revisit its final offer of compensation, we have seen no evidence it did so at the time. This was inappropriate considering the further delays the resident experienced.
  15. The resident contacted us in February 2025 and raised concerns the mould had returned since the landlord completed the repairs. Considering the time that passed since the repairs were completed, and its final complaint response, we do not consider this specific repair part of this complaint. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of this particular concern in this investigation. We welcome the fact it has raised a “full inspection” for May 2025. We therefore see no need to make orders for further inspections. However, the landlord must write to the resident outlining what repairs it needs to complete, and when it will complete them by, following its inspection in May 2025.
  16. The landlord offered the resident a total of £1,280 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. Considering the further delays, outlined above, we have decided its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. We have decided there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  17. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £550 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £1,280 it already offered for its handling of the repairs.
  18. It is worth noting the offer it made of £717.75 for the costs of redecoration has not been included in this calculation. This is because it was for a specific cost and not related to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. If the landlord has revisited its offer of compensation since it completed the repairs in September 2024, it can deduct this from the additional £550 we have ordered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 20 working days after the resident complained. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint policy, and the Code. It was inappropriate the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The landlord decided to send the resident multiple stage 1 follow up responses, in July, August, and September 2022. We acknowledge each time it advised the resident she could have her complaint considered at stage 2 if she wanted. However, its overall approach to stage 1 was not in line with that set out in our Code. It is noted the resident did not explicitly ask it to escalate her complaint. However, it was unreasonable the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at this stage, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated a protracted complaints process.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 140 working days after we asked it to open a stage 2 investigation. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation for the delay. It also acknowledged the errors it made at stage 1. This showed transparency and learning.
  5. Our remedies guidance sets out an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We have decided the landlord’s offer of £300 for its complaint handling was appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the guttering and facia board.
  2. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £1,830 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. It should deduct its offer of £1,280 from this total if already paid.
    3. Write to the resident setting out what repairs it will do and when it plans to do them, following its May 2025 inspection.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £300 in compensation it offered in recognition of the errors in its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding this compensation was/will be paid.