Sanctuary Housing Association (202316571)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316571

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the block’s communal areas.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident moved to the property in 2006. The landlord was unable to provide her tenancy documents. It supplied a copy of the property’s original tenancy agreement. This indicates the resident is an assured tenant. She lives with her husband and their son. Their son has a medical condition that relates to his immune system. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a low-rise block. The block has a yard with some external storage sheds. The resident contributes to the block’s maintenance and cleaning costs via service charges.
4. From 2022 onwards, the resident contacted the landlord several times about the condition of the block’s communal yard. The landlord says it did not address her concerns at this stage. Later, she completed the landlord’s online complaint form in April 2023. She said there were recurring problems with the yard and the landlord should address the root cause. In June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and arranged an inspection. It awarded her a total of £100 in compensation. It also contacted some of its internal departments to notify them about the resident’s concerns.
5. Around 3 weeks later, the landlord updated the resident about its actions. The resident was not satisfied with the measures it had taken. There was a disagreement between the parties. The landlord did not escalate her complaint at this point. Subsequently, the resident approached the Ombudsman in August 2023. Our intervention prompted the landlord to escalate her complaint. It issued a stage 2 response in September 2023. It said it had complied with its obligations but some of its communication had been poor. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded her further compensation. This was £225 in total.
6. In April 2025 the Ombudsman contacted the parties to obtain an update. We were unable to obtain an update from the resident. It is understood that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s approach. The landlord told us she had recently reported a dog fouling incident in the yard. It said it had taken several actions in response to the incident. It also said it had updated the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the block’s communal areas

7. The parties agree that the resident has raised concerns about the block’s communal areas several times from 2022 onwards. There is evidence that she contacted the landlord about the communal yard in June 2022 and April 2023. The landlord says the resident’s husband contacted it about the block’s internal areas in March 2023. The parties did not provide any direct evidence about these interactions. The landlord did consider them in its complaint responses. Ultimately, it accepted it had not responded to the resident’s concerns (or her husband’s) accordingly. The resident has not disputed this assertion and the Ombudsman has seen little evidence to the contrary. It is noted there is evidence that the landlord has previously cleaned the yard. It is not entirely clear when it did this.
8. On 29 April 2023 the resident raised an online complaint with the landlord. She said the block’s communal yard was “in a disgraceful state”. She referenced dog excrement, rubbish, old furniture, and the condition of the “eco bins”. She said the bins had not been emptied for months and the storage sheds were full of rubbish. She wanted the landlord to address these issues. Significantly, she felt they stemmed from a lack of regular inspections on its part. She also felt it was the landlord’s responsibility to enforce cleanliness standards. Her other key points were:
   1. She had complained about the yard before. She felt the landlord would ultimately clean it, but the issues would recur until the root cause was addressed.
   2. She had stopped using the yard. The situation was unfair. She paid service charges to the landlord and she expected to live in a “decent” environment.
   3. She was unhappy with the landlord’s local representative. She said they did not reply to emails. She felt their lack of action had contributed to the mess in the yard.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 May 2023. It said it needed some additional time to investigate. It promised to respond by 31 May 2023. We will consider its complaint handling in the relevant section below. Subsequently, the resident chased the landlord on 24 May 2023. She said she had previously supplied it with pictures of the yard. She said its representative had promised to address the matter several times. She also said 6 weeks had passed and it was still unresolved. The Ombudsman has seen several images of the yard. They show dog excrement and a significant amount of debris on the floor. It is reasonable to conclude the mess was distressing for the resident.
10. On 1 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. This was on the basis it had not addressed matters within its required timescale. It said it would inspect the yard to establish if it needed to take any follow–up actions. It also said it had notified its relevant managers about the resident’s concerns. These were reasonable steps by the landlord. It awarded her £75 in related compensation. This comprised £25 for its delay in addressing the condition of the yard, and £50 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate for the landlord to compensate her given what went wrong. However, subsequent events show it may have helped the resident if the landlord had clarified its obligations in relation to the yard.
11. Later, in September 2023, the resident told us the landlord cleaned the yard on 2 June 2023. This was a positive and reasonable step on its part. However, we were unable to confirm the date of the landlord’s cleaning from its own records. This is concerning and indicates there may be a record keeping issue. The evidence suggests the landlord cleaned the yard on a one-off/reactive basis.
12. The property’s original tenancy agreement is from 2002. It says the landlord will keep external communal areas “in good order”. This includes car parks and open spaces. The landlord has also supplied a copy of its resident’s handbook.  This is a more recent document. It says the landlord will “keep communal areas tidy and well maintained (if you pay a service charge for this service)”. It also says, “If you use communal areas and do not pay a service charge, please keep them clean and tidy. Not doing so is a breach of your tenancy agreement.” It is noted there is some inconsistency in the above wording. The documents do not specifically state that the landlord is obliged to clean or inspect the yard regularly.
13. The landlord updated the resident about her complaint on 21 June 2023. It said it had arranged for the yard to be cleaned, reported some contaminated bins to the local authority, and prepared letters to send to the block’s residents. Call notes show the resident was not satisfied. She wanted the landlord to take further actions. The notes show there was a disagreement between the parties. The landlord felt it needed to allow sufficient time for its above measures to take effect. The resident felt it should not leave matters in the hands of its local representative. This was on the basis they had failed to act previously. It is noted the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint at this point.
14. The resident sent the landlord further emails subsequently. On 28 June 2023 she confirmed it had recently cleaned the yard. She reiterated her belief that issues would recur unless it implemented regular inspections of the block and the yard. There is no indication the landlord responded to her additional emails. This is concerning. We have considered the matter further in the complaint handling section of this report.
15. The evidence suggests the landlord’s lack of contact prompted the resident to approach the Ombudsman. Our intervention caused it to reopen her complaint on 18 September 2023. It subsequently made some internal enquiries. It also received a number of replies. It was reasonable for the landlord to make internal enquiries to clarify the situation. In summary, it received replies that said yard cleaning was not part of its existing cleaning or grounds maintenance services. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to the contrary.
16. On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It relayed the information it had received from its internal departments. The landlord said it had complied with its obligations. It also said some of its communication had been “poor”. On that basis, it partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded her £75 in related compensation for distress and inconvenience. This was because it did not respond to concerns that her husband raised in March 2023 about internal cleaning issues. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. It was not responsible for emptying the bins the resident had mentioned. They belonged to the local authority. The landlord included an email address for the local authority and a copy of its refuse collection schedule in its response.
    2. Each flat had a designated storage shed. Residents were responsible for the sheds’ contents. If the resident had safety concerns about the items in a shed, she should notify the landlord’s local representative. However, they may be unable to update her about its subsequent actions. This was because these actions may involve personal information about another resident.
    3. It had legal obligations in relation to the removal and disposal of items. To comply with these obligations, the landlord had to notify the owner that it intended to remove their goods. It also had to give them sufficient time to respond. This timeframe was usually 14 days.
    4. The resident paid a weekly cleaning charge. The charge only related to the block’s internal stairs and landings. The landlord’s caretakers cleaned these areas every week. They also inspected them twice per month. The landlord had reminded its cleaning team to notify it about any items that were left in these areas. This was so it could address them accordingly.
    5. The resident paid a similar service charge for grounds maintenance. It covered the costs of grass cutting at the front of the block. It also included weed spraying (only) in the yard. The landlord had checked its maintenance schedule. It did not find any evidence of missed appointments. Ultimately, the resident was not being charged for yard cleaning services.
    6. It was unable to “police or routinely clear” litter or dog fouling in the area. If the resident knew who was responsible for the dog fouling, it could open a nuisance case against the owner. It would remind the owner of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
    7. Any fly-tipping in the yard (such as furniture items) should be reported to its repairs service. The landlord could raise a one-off job to remove items. If it could trace them, it may be possible to charge the owner for this service.
    8. Adding yard cleaning to the landlord’s existing services would increase its service charges for all of the block’s residents. The landlord would have to consult the residents before it made any amendments to its services.
    9. The resident’s husband had contacted the landlord on 30 March 2023. This was to report that the block’s internal cleaning had not been completed. The landlord had not replied to him and it was sorry about this. If the resident had any current concerns about the internal cleaning, it would be happy to investigate these. It could also arrange an inspection of the area.
    10. Similarly, it was willing to investigate any other occasions where it had not responded to concerns or requests from the resident.
17. In summary, the landlord said it took a reactive approach to issues in the yard. It also said there was an onus on residents to inform it about any related problems. This approach is consistent with the information in its resident’s handbook. It is less consistent with the information in the property’s original tenancy agreement. However, this document was not issued by the resident’s current landlord. It is unclear if it has been superseded by a more recent document. Overall, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord’s reactive approach was either incorrect or unfair. If necessary, the landlord can obtain legal advice about the wording in the property’s original tenancy agreement. This may improve its decision making in relation to the communal yard.
18. The landlord’s response shows it identified an additional issue during its investigation. It related to a report from the resident’s husband on 30 March 2023. The evidence suggests this was not part of the resident’s complaint. However, it was similar to the issues she had raised and the landlord identified a related failure. On that basis, it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to address the matter in its response. Its proactive approach represents good practice on its part. This finding is based on the premise that it complied with its data protection obligations. It is noted that the landlord’s overall compensation amounted to £150 at this point (it awarded £75 at each complaint stage).
19. The landlord’s compensation was based on 2 failures. It addressed an initial delay of around 12 months between June 2022 and June 2023. It is noted the resident’s online complaint indicates the landlord may have cleaned the yard in 2022. The second failure was based on a delay between 30 March and 20 September 2023. This period lasted for around 6 months. The landlord’s relevant compensation guidance shows it can pay discretionary compensation to address service failures. It will consider various factors in its calculations. They include any time, trouble, and inconvenience that arose from its actions or inaction. It will also consider any delayed or poor responses. The landlord has different categories of award. They are based on low, medium, and high impacts. In this case, both of the landlord’s awards were consistent with its medium impact category. The evidence supports the landlord’s approach.
20. The landlord updated the resident on 10 October 2023. It said it had closed her complaint as she had not replied to its stage 2 response. On the following day, the resident told the landlord she was still unhappy. She disputed its assertion that it inspected the block’s indoor areas twice a month. She said there was rubbish on a landing and it had been there “for months”. She wanted the landlord to provide her with contact details for its caretaker. There is no indication it was obliged to supply this information. The resident felt the landlord had proposed an increase in its service charges and this was unfair. She also felt it wanted its residents to monitor their neighbours. She felt this was the landlord’s responsibility. Some of her concerns were understandable.
21. On 12 October 2023 the landlord completed an “unannounced inspection” of the block. This was in response to the resident’s email the previous day. This was a swift and effective response to the information she had provided at this point. The inspection was completed by the landlord’s local manager. In related internal correspondence, the landlord said it had found personal items on 2 of the block’s landings. It said it would ask the owners to remove them. It also said, if necessary, it could obtain a quote to remove them. Given the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete an unannounced inspection.
22. The landlord updated the resident on the same day. It noted the block’s residents “would not necessarily be aware” of its routine inspections. This was on the basis they were part of its management process rather than a service that it provided to residents. Ultimately, the landlord says it has an inspection procedure in place. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to the contrary. It is appropriate for the landlord to monitor its provision of any chargeable services for quality purposes. It has commercial freedom to determine its own management processes. The Ombudsman cannot compel it to conduct additional inspections if it is not contractually obliged to do this.
23. However, the resident said items had been left in the block’s indoor areas for a prolonged period. The landlord’s records indicate these may have been in place for several weeks by the time she highlighted the issue. This suggests there may have been problems with the landlord’s existing inspection process. It is reasonable to conclude that left items could potentially present a safety issue. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had reminded its cleaning team to report any left items that were observed during the course of their activities.  This was a reasonable and proportionate measure from the landlord. The evidence shows it issued its response before the resident raised this matter.
24. The resident updated the Ombudsman on 19 October 2023. She reiterated some of her previous concerns. She also said there was “still rubbish” on one of the block’s landings. This was around 8 days after she reported the problem to the landlord. The landlord had previously said that its standard removal process involved a 14–day timescale. Overall, there is no evidence to support an additional failure by the landlord at this point. We have not considered its subsequent handling of the reported items. This is because we have not seen sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of its actions after this date. If the resident has any related concerns, she can bring them to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
25. The landlord updated the Ombudsman in April 2025. It said the resident had not reported any further issues with the sheds or bins. It told us she had recently reported a dog fouling incident and it had acted on her report. It felt the resident was satisfied with its response. It is noted the landlord’s actions appear to be consistent with the reactive approach it outlined in its stage 2 response.
26. In summary, the evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that it complied with its obligations. However, it has rightly acknowledged that its communication was poor at times. It identified its related delays and failures and took steps to address them. The measures it took were reasonable. The compensation it awarded was proportionate and consistent with its relevant guidance. It demonstrated good practice towards the end of the resident’s complaint journey. It is understood the resident feels the landlord should be more proactive. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that it is obliged to adopt her preferred approach. We cannot compel the landlord to undertake additional inspections. Overall, we find the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident. This represents reasonable redress by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. The resident completed the landlord’s complaint form on 29 April 2023. The landlord issued her an acknowledgement on 2 May 2023. This was 3 working days later. Its relevant complaints policy says it aims to log and acknowledge complaints within 3 working days at stage 1. The landlord complied with this timescale. Its acknowledgement said it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It also said the landlord would respond by 31 May 2023. It was good practice for the landlord to inform the resident of a delay as soon as possible.
28. Its complaints policy says the landlord will contact residents if it needs more investigation time. It also says the landlord will explain the reasons why it needs an extension and confirm any extension to its timescales in writing. This indicates it should call residents to discuss any delays. In this case, there is no indication the landlord called the resident. Similarly, aside from saying that it needed more investigation time, it did not explain the reasons for the delay. The landlord’s approach at this stage was not consistent with its complaints policy.
29. On 25 May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for its response. It is noted this was prior to the deadline in its acknowledgement. Still, it is reasonable to conclude that chasing the landlord was inconvenient for her. The landlord may have been able to avoid her chaser if it had complied with its extension procedure. The evidence shows it contributed to the resident’s chaser and her related inconvenience. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 1 June 2023. This was 1 day after its deadline expired. The landlord did not adhere to its deadline or notify the resident about a further delay. This is concerning.
30. In its response, the landlord awarded the resident £25 in compensation for complaint handling failures. This was based on its delayed response to her concerns in 2022 and her complaint in 2023. This shows it considered its own complaint handling and took steps to address procedural delays and failures. This was appropriate complaint handling. Its response wording suggests the landlord felt it should have raised a formal complaint for the resident in 2022. The evidence supports this assertion (in her 2023 complaint, the resident said she had complained about the yard before). If the resident was unable to address her concerns through the correct channel in 2022, this may have caused some distress for her.
31. The landlord’s award of £25 was consistent with the low impact category in its compensation guidance. Given its combined failures in 2022 and 2023, and their resulting impact to the resident, the evidence suggests it could have reasonably used its medium impact category instead. This is largely because the landlord’s acknowledged failure to raise a complaint in 2022 was a significant failure in itself. As a result, we find the landlord’s award was not sufficient to address its related failures.
32. There were other issues with the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not address the resident’s key concerns about regular inspections. The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 says landlords “must address all points raised in the complaint”. The landlord did not do this, so its response was contrary to the Code. The resident’s initial complaint shows her concerns about recurring issues and regular inspections were important to her. The landlord’s failure to address them may have added to her overall distress.
33. In addition, the landlord said it had issued the response “at the final stage of its complaints process”. In contrast, its complaints policy confirms it operates a 2–stage complaints procedure. The policy says residents “have a right” to request an escalation if they are unhappy with a stage 1 response. The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 1 response included incorrect wording. This may have caused some confusion or distress for the resident.
34. On 21 June 2023 the landlord called the resident about her complaint. Its call notes confirm she was unhappy with several aspects of its response. Based on her comments, the landlord should have reasonably asked if she wanted to escalate her complaint. It did not do this. Later, it correctly acknowledged that it  was responsible for a failure at this point. As mentioned, the resident sent it further emails about its response subsequently. She eventually contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. This should not have been necessary at this stage. Ultimately, she took a number of actions to progress matters after her call with the landlord. The evidence shows the landlord could have avoided these actions. Its approach likely caused further inconvenience for the resident.
35. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. This was around 3 months after it had called the resident. The response addressed its complaint handling from April 2023 onwards. The landlord awarded the resident £150 in compensation for various failures. This was based on a failure to adhere to its policy timescales at stage 1 (the landlord should have issued its response within 10 working days of logging the complaint), its failure to address key aspects of the resident’s complaint in its initial response, its failure to ask her if she wanted to escalate the complaint, and its failure to respond to some of her communications. The landlord’s rationale shows it identified most of its key failures and the related impacts to the resident.
36. The compensation the landlord awarded at stage 2 was consistent with the medium impact category in its compensation guidance. The evidence shows it applied a reasonable category given what went wrong. As a result, the redress it offered was almost sufficient to put things right. However, the landlord did not recognise that it could have awarded more compensation at stage 1 based on its failure to raise a complaint in 2022. Similarly, it did not acknowledge that there was incorrect wording in its stage 1 response, or the impact this may have caused to the resident. Finally, it did not acknowledge the additional inconvenience that was caused by the resident’s avoidable contact to the Ombudsman. It could have reasonably considered this. Having done so, it could have reflected the resident’s related inconvenience in its compensation calculation. There is no indication the landlord did this.
37. In summary, the landlord identified most of its key failures and took steps to address them. Its approach was largely consistent with its compensation guidance. However, the evidence suggests it did not recognise the full impact of its initial complaint handling delay (in 2022) on the resident. Had it done so, it could have reasonably awarded some additional compensation in line with the medium impact category in its guidance. The evidence points to a similar issue in 2023. The landlord could have reasonably acknowledged it was avoidable and inconvenient for the resident to involve the Ombudsman before it had issued a stage 2 response. In addition, there was some incorrect wording in its stage 1 response which may have caused some confusion for the resident. The landlord’s compensation calculation did not reflect this error. Since there was not a large disparity, we find there was service failure in respect of its complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation. Our calculation reflects the available evidence, its compensation guidance, and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the block’s communal areas.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £225 in compensation. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £175 that the landlord previously awarded the resident at stages 1 and 2 of its complaints process. If it has already paid this amount or part of it, the landlord should deduct the amount it has already paid (it must not make the same payment twice).
    2. An additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

41. In addition to the £225 ordered above, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 that it previously offered her across stages 1 and 2 if it has not already done so. This figure relates to the substantive issue (the communal areas). Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this payment is made.
42. The landlord to consider obtaining legal advice about the wording of the property’s original tenancy agreement. This is because it is unclear whether it should adopt a proactive approach to the yard or not. A definitive outcome may improve the landlord’s decision making. It may also help to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.