Sanctuary Housing Association (202304492)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304492

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 April 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Its letter requesting access to complete electrical testing in the property.
2. Unannounced visits at the property.
This assessment will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.

Complaint A

On 5 March 2023 the resident made a complaint, complaint A, to the landlord about its letter requesting access to complete electrical testing in the property. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unclear why the landlord had requested she wear a face covering during the appointment to complete the inspection.
2. She understood from other residents that follow–up work identified from inspections had not been completed within a reasonable timeframe. She noted some residents had waited at least 18 months for work to be completed.
3. She was aware other residents had been left with “defective [plug] sockets” following the inspection. She was concerned this would happen in the property.
On 20 March 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to complaint A. She noted that the landlord had acknowledged the complaint on 7 March 2023 confirming a response would be provided by 20 March 2023.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint A. In summary the landlord said:
1. The template used to request access to complete electrical testing was out of date and should not have been used. The template referred to guidelines which were in place during the Covid-19 pandemic. It would ensure that the template was updated. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused.
2. It was unable to comment on the timescales which other residents had experienced for follow on work after an inspection. However it would usually ensure any work identified was completed “within a matter of weeks depending on the urgency of the job required”.
3. Where an inspection identified a faulty socket it would be completed “within an appropriate timeframe”.
4. It would like to award £50 compensation to the resident comprising:
  1. £25 for the inclusion of out of date information in its letter.
  2. £25 for delay in responding to the complaint.
On the same day the resident responded confirming that she “noted” the landlord’s reply. She explained that, as the landlord had taken over 8 weeks to investigate complaint A, she was in the process of referring the matter to us for assistance.
Following contact from the resident about complaint A we wrote to her to request further information. This included information on the status of the complaint and whether a final response had been provided. In response, and in early autumn 2023, the resident provided information relating to another complaint, complaint B, which she had made to the landlord in the summer. No further information was provided in relation to complaint A.

Complaint B

On 6 August 2023 the resident complained, complaint B, to the landlord about unannounced visits to the property. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord and its contractors had made at least 14 unannounced visits to the property between January 2023 and 2 August 2023. She believed that the unannounced visits were relating to a gas inspection and a disrepair claim which she had made to the landlord.
2. The unannounced visits were unacceptable and “could count as harassment”. She said that the landlord must give at least 24 hours’ notice to access the property in line with the tenancy agreement.
3. It was unacceptable that the landlord had written to her and her disrepair solicitor suggesting that she was refusing access to the property to complete repairs. Between January 2023 and July 2023 she had granted access for repairs on 9 occasions.
The resident concluded complaint B by requesting that the landlord refrain from turning up at the property unannounced. In addition she requested that the landlord only communicate with her by email.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint B. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for any inconvenience or upset caused by unannounced visits to the property. Sometimes its operatives would attend a property unannounced if they were in the area to try and bring forward an appointment. It recognised that this was not always convenient for its tenants.
2. It would add a note to the resident’s account setting out that an appointment should be made prior to visiting the property.
3. It had passed the resident’s concerns regarding the no access letter to the relevant department for a response.
4. It would like to award the resident £50 compensation.
On 22 August 2023 the resident requested to escalate complaint B as she did not believe her concerns had been property investigated. In summary she said:
1. It was a “breach of protocol” for the landlord to attend a property without notice.
2. The no access letter was signed by a housing officer, and not the landlord’s solicitor.
3. It was not clear why the landlord could not respond to her concerns regarding its allegation that she was refusing access. She was concerned that the matter would not be followed up.
4. She did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation as it was “derisory”.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to complaint B. In summary the landlord said:
1. It reiterated its apology for the inconvenience and upset caused by the unannounced visits to the property. It understood that the visits related to the resident’s disrepair claim and therefore it was unable to provide any clarity about the appointments. The resident’s concerns had been referred to its legal team for a response.
2. The resident should contact its customer service team if an operative turned up unannounced at the property who she was unsure of.
3. Its letter regarding no access was from a housing officer and not its solicitor. As the letter related to the resident’s disrepair claim it was appropriate that it was referred to the relevant department for a response.
4. It was sorry that its stage 1 response did not address all concerns which the resident had raised.
5. It would like to increase its offer of compensation to £200 comprising:
  1. £50 offered at stage 1.
  2. £50 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to its “actions or inactions”.
  3. £100 for poor communication.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to us if she was unhappy with its response.
On 20 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that it was unacceptable that it had suggested that she contact its customer service team in relation to unannounced visits. She stated that this was not a resolution to her concerns.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had reviewed its response to complaint B. In summary the landlord said:
1. In responding to the complaint correct advice was given that it was unable to investigate matters which were being dealt with through a disrepair claim. It was therefore appropriate that the resident’s concerns regarding the nature of the unannounced visits and the no access letter were referred to the relevant department for a response.
2. It should have been clearer regarding its advice to contact its customer service team in relation to unannounced visits. It always recommended that a resident take steps to confirm the identity of an attending operative before granting access. Contact with its customer service team would also provide a record of any unannounced visit should it be required to complete an investigation at a later date.
3. As part of its complaint investigation “more could have been done” to prevent unannounced visits at the property. It was sorry that it had not explained what action it could take. It confirmed that it had raised an alert on the resident’s record to ensure that appointments to the property were always prearranged.
4. It would like to increase its offer of compensation to £500 comprising:
  1. £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to its “actions or inactions”. It confirmed this was inclusive of the £50 offered at stage 1.
  2. £150 for poor communication.
  3. £150 for handling of the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its letter requesting access to complete electrical testing in the property

While the landlord did not provide a final response to complaint A we have used our discretion to determine the complaint. We consider that this is appropriate as the resident confirmed to this Service in March 2025 that she would like the complaint investigated. In addition both parties have shared information and evidence about the complaint with us, and therefore to bring the matter to a close.
In February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting access to complete electrical testing in the property. The letter and accompanying documents referenced the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to follow the guidelines in place during the appointment. This included face coverings and social distancing.
All Covid-19 guidelines and legal requirements ended in February 2022. The landlord’s letter and accompanying documents therefore contained out of date information which was no longer relevant. This is unsatisfactory. A landlord should ensure that its communication is up to date, accurate and reflects the circumstances of a situation or event. This will enable it to provide good customer service and reassure a resident.
In responding to complaint A the landlord acknowledged that its letter contained out of date information. It explained that this was due to an old template being used. The landlord apologised for its error and the impact on the resident. In addition it awarded £25 compensation. We are satisfied that the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of this part of the complaint and the impact on the resident.
In addition to the apology and offer of compensation the landlord confirmed that it would update its template for electrical testing. This was appropriate to ensure that the error would not be repeated.
As part of complaint A the resident raised concerns regarding timescales for completing work identified by the electrical testing. The landlord responded by confirming that all work would be completed promptly taking into account the urgency of the repair. This was a reasonable response to reassure the resident on its timescales for completing follow on work. It was appropriate that the landlord did not share information with the resident detailing repair appointments for other tenants as this would be in breach of date protection rules.
While the landlord did provide out of date information within its letter requesting access for electrical testing, it has since identified and acknowledged its failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. It has also taken action to update the template. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about unannounced visits at the property

We understand that a large number of the unannounced visits to the property were in relation to the resident’s disrepair claim. In determining this part of the complaint we will not be considering the repairs associated with the claim. This is because complaint B was not about the condition of the property or the repairs needed. It was focused on the resident’s concerns about the unannounced visits to her home.
The Housing Act 1988 sets out that a landlord must provide a tenant with at least 24 hours’ notice before visiting a property and a tenant must give permission for access. It is illegal for a landlord to enter a property without agreement, except in the case of an emergency.
We are aware that some landlords do attend properties to carry out repairs or other housing related activities unannounced and without an appointment when an operative is in the area. When this happens it is for the resident to decide whether they are happy for the visit to go ahead. If they are not they can ask for an appointment to be made. The landlord must accept the resident’s decision; except in the case of an emergency.
Within complaint B the resident set out that the landlord made 14 unannounced visits to the property. The resident does not suggest that the landlord, or its operatives, had attempted to gain access where she refused permission. The resident however confirmed that in her view the unannounced visits amounted to a breach in her right to quiet enjoyment of the property. We also recognise that the resident found the unannounced visits distressing.
In responding to complaint B the landlord did not deny the resident’s account of the unannounced visits. The landlord instead apologised for any upset or inconvenience caused, offered £200 compensation and confirmed that a marker would be put on the resident’s account for visits to the property. These actions were appropriate. They showed that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s circumstances and it was taking steps to ensure unannounced visits would not happen again. The landlord’s offer of compensation was also in the Ombudsman’s range for cases where there has been a service failure which has adversely affected a resident.
Despite the landlord’s commitment to add a marker to the resident’s housing record the evidence shows that this was not done until 8 January 2024. It is not clear why the landlord delayed in completing the action following its review response in September 2023. While the delay is unsatisfactory, it does not amount to a service failure in our view.
In responding to complaint B the landlord asked the resident to contact its customer service team if an operative attended the property unannounced in the future. This was a reasonable request, for the reasons which it gave within its review response.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will not consider matters where legal proceedings have started. As the landlord considered that the unannounced visits and no access letter were in relation to the resident’s disrepair case, which was being dealt with using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to comment in detail on these matter in responding to the complaint. However in our opinion it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided some clarification on the purpose of the unannounced visits and details of the no access appointments to help the resident understand the situation and its position. This could have included confirmation that all unannounced visits were in relation to repairs, rather than other tenancy issues or the dates and times of the no access appointments.
The landlord has apolgoised and awarded appropriate compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced in respect of the unannounced visits to the property. The landlord has also added a no cold calling marker to the resident’s housing file to prevent unannounced visits happening in the future. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted complaint A on 5 March 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023, following a chaser by the resident. This was a period of 49 working days which was significantly outside of the landlord’s own service standard for responding to complaints; 10 working days. This is unsatisfactory. While the complaint response was outstanding the resident could have felt her concerns were not being taken seriously.
In responding to complaint A the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in responding to the complaint and therefore awarded £25 compensation. This was appropriate to recognise the impact on the resident while the response was outstanding.
The complaint policy which was in place at the time of complaint B confirms that the landlord operated a 2 stage complaint procedure – which was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In responding to complaint B the landlord provided 3 complaint responses; a stage 1 response, a stage 2 response and a review response. It is not clear why the landlord undertook a review of complaint B following its stage 2 response as it had signposted the resident to us if she was unhappy with its response. This does not amount to a service failure as the resident was not disadvantaged by the review.
In respect of its complaint handling the landlord awarded £300 compensation. The landlord confirmed that this was for poor communication and because it identified that its stage 1 and stage 2 responses could have been clearer for the resident. This was reasonable to reflect that it had found that its service delivery had fallen short and therefore to put things right.
The landlord has apologised and awarded appropriate compensation for the delay in responding to complaint A and the shortfalls it identified in its complaint handling in respect of complaint B. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves her complaint in respect of its:
1. Response to her concerns about its letter requesting access to complete electrical testing in the property.
2. Response to her concerns about unannounced visits at the property.
3. Complaint handling.