From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Sanctuary Housing Association (202415885)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT  202415885

Sanctuary Housing Association

2 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 repairs to the resident’s toilet and their request for compensation.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house with 2 toilets. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident reported her downstairs toilet (the toilet) was blocked on 26 February 2023. The landlord treated this as an emergency repair, arranging for a contractor to attend the next day and clear the blockage. The resident reported the same issue on 8 March 2023. While there is evidence the landlord arranged an urgent repair within 24 hours, it is not clear when the blockage was cleared.
  3. There were no further issues until 10 November 2023, when the resident reported the toilet was full to the brim, despite it not being used. The landlord arranged an emergency repair to unblock it. The resident formally complained on 13 November 2023, saying blockages had been ongoing for some time and the latest had damaged her floor. She asked the landlord to replace the flooring and investigate why the toilet continued to block.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 November 2023, it said contractors may need to carry out further tests. It apologised for not resolving the issue and offered a good will payment of £225 (£150 for the persistent toilet issues and £75 to clean and dry the floor). Following a challenge by the resident, the landlord increased the sum to clean and dry the floor to £125 on 4 December 2023.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint and reported further issues on 23 January 2024. A contractor attended on 29 January 2024 and identified issues with the pipework. They suggested the landlord should carry out further investigations, but these did not go ahead.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 30 March 2024, it acknowledged the delays in carrying out further investigations, the future impact on the resident until the repairs were completed, and complaint handling delays. It increased its compensation offer to £375 (£125 for the drain survey delay, £100 for future impact, and £150 for complaint handling). The landlord did not agree that the resident’s flooring had been damaged and so did not offer any additional payment in that regard.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to us in July 2024. The landlord carried out a CCTV drainage survey in April 2025 which found that the drainage system was working as intended. However, it told us there was an ongoing discussion about the design of the pipework between the property developer and engineers.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet

  1. The resident says she has experienced blockages in the toilet since 2019, but no formal complaint was made until November 2023. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from early-2023.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy says it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours of the repair request and complete any remedial works within 45 days. It says it will regularly update customers on the progress of the repair through proactive communication. The landlord treated the resident’s initial reports as emergency repairs and arranged for the blockages reported on 26 February and 10 November 2023 to be cleared within 24 hours. Whilst we cannot establish when the blockage of 8 March 2023 was cleared, evidence suggests the landlord arranged an urgent repair within 24 hours and there are no reports that it was not completed within a reasonable time. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord dealt with the initial reports in line with its repairs policy and within an acceptable timeframe.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 November 2023, it acknowledged multiple visits to clean drains and pipes since 20 January 2020. It said it may need to carry out further tests to fully resolve the issue and understand what was causing it. It did not provide a timeframe for any further investigations, which it should have done. Its policy says it should be proactive in updating residents on the progress of repairs, but there is no evidence that it did so in this case.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy says that, when a resident asks for compensation as part of a complaint, it should ask the resident for any evidence. Its compensation policy says:
    1. It can consider awarding compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to its action or inaction.
    2. The amount will be decided by considering whether there has been a ‘high’ or ‘low’ impact as a result of the service failure and effort needed to resolve the issue.  It defines ‘high impact’ as, excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolved. It defines ‘high effort’ as high volumes of communications required to resolve an issue.
    3. The landlord will take an evidence led approach to awarding compensation for items damaged by the landlord’s action or inaction.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 offer of £150 for repairs to the toilet was reasonable at that time, given that the resident had only complained about it 10 days earlier. It is also positive that the landlord committed to further investigations to resolve the ongoing issues. With regard to the £75 for cleaning and drying the floor, this was not appropriate as the landlord should have asked for evidence of the alleged damage to the flooring. It could then have properly considered the resident’s claim and given a more informed response.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 27 November 2023 that she was unhappy with the offer to clean and dry her floor and said it would not cover the cost of one pack of flooring. She said it had been difficult and stressful living with the issue and invited the landlord to inspect the extent of the damage itself. The landlord replied on 4 December 2023, increasing the offer to clean and dry the floor to £125. Rather than simply offering increased compensation, the landlord should have taken the opportunity of the resident’s challenge to properly assess her claim by either inspecting the flooring itself or requesting evidence of the damage. As it did neither, this was a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns.
  7. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 and the landlord contacted the resident on 23 January 2024. She reported that the toilet continued to block and she was using an alternative one. The following day the landlord arranged a drain survey which took place on 29 January 2024, 77 days after the resident’s November 2023 report. This delay was unreasonable, as the landlord’s policy says it should complete all appointed repairs within 45 days. The policy also says it will update residents as to the progress of a repair if it is unable to complete it within 45 days. We have not seen evidence that it did so in this case.
  8. The contractor who attended on 29 January 2024 reported there was inadequate pipework and no fall from the toilet to the maintenance hole. He recommended further investigations with CCTV. The landlord made arrangements for a contractor to attend, and an appointment was booked for 8 March 2024. However, this was brought forward to 7 March 2024, and it appears the resident was given less than 24 hours’ notice. The landlord’s repair policy says it should contact the resident to agree an alternative appointment time in such circumstances but there is no record the resident agreed to the new date. The appointment could not go ahead as there was no adult at the property when the contractor attended on 7 March 2024.
  9. The landlord did not request a further appointment until 21 March 2024. It should have arranged it sooner, given that it was now 129 days since the resident complained about ongoing blockages. A new appointment was booked for 5 April 2024.
  10. In the Stage 2 response of 30 March 2024, the landlord disagreed with the resident’s report of damage to her floor and said it could not consider this unless she provided evidence of the damage. Whilst we accept the landlord takes an evidence-based approach when considering compensation, we note the resident had previously invited it to inspect the flooring. There is no evidence the landlord had taken any steps to arrange an inspection, which was unreasonable. This meant it could not properly assess the resident’s request for compensation.
  11. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award compensation of between £151 and £400 when there has been ‘high impact’ and ‘high effort’ to resolve an issue. Further, it provides for a ‘room loss allowance’ of between 10 and 20% of the rent during a period when a resident could not use a toilet but had use of a second one (as in this case). As the resident had reported she was not able to use the toilet, the landlord should have considered a room loss allowance. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
  12. The £225 compensation offered at stage 2 was also inappropriate, as the delay investigating the cause of the blockages and completing remedial works had a high impact on the resident over a prolonged period. This resulted in further effort and inconvenience to the resident whilst she tried to resolve the issue. This level of redress is not in line with our remedies guidance for such failings.
  13. The appointment of 5 April 2024 was later re-scheduled to 10 May 2024 but did not go ahead as the contractor could not get access to the property. It is unclear whether the resident agreed to the appointment or not.
  14. Records show the landlord sent a text to the resident on 30 April 2024 to notify her of an appointment to inspect the flooring on 20 May 2024. The landlord attended that day, but the resident was not in to provide access. The landlord told us that it left a card at the property asking her to contact it to re-arrange the inspection and she had not done so. However, we have seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord on 16 July 2024 and asked it to consider her request for compensation. She was again told she needed to provide evidence, despite her previously notifying the landlord that she was unable to provide photos of the damage. We have seen no evidence of any further attempts by the landlord to inspect the flooring.
  15. The landlord carried out a CCTV drainage survey on 4 April 2025. Amongst other things, the associated report said:
    1. The inspection involved a thorough examination of the internal condition of the pipework and there were checks for any signs of deterioration, blockages, root ingress, joint displacement, or structural defects.
    2. The drainage system was found to be in excellent working condition throughout. All pipework inspected was clear.
    3. The drainage system was structurally sound and free flowing at the time of the survey.
    4. There were no visible signs of damage, such as cracks, fractures, or collapses, and no obstructions or debris were found within the system.
    5. The drainage network was operating as intended and did not require any immediate maintenance or repair.
  16. While it is positive that the landlord has now carried out further investigations which show the drainage system is in good working order, we note it previously acknowledged there may be an issue with the design of the system itself. It told us on 28 April 2025 that there are ongoing discussions between the property developer and engineers who are expected to visit the property during the week commencing 5 May 2025.
  17. In conclusion, the landlord failed to investigate the cause of the toilet blockages to a point that would allow them to remedy the situation. It has failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its repair policy by a significant margin and has not kept the resident adequately informed. The landlord also failed to invite the resident to provide evidence of damage to her flooring at the earliest opportunity. These failures amount to maladministration and an order for additional compensation is made.
  18. The landlord has offered £225 compensation for the delays investigating and completing any remedial repairs to the toilet. This sum is not proportionate to the identified failings and does not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a prolonged period. It is not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it can make awards of up to £400 when there has been high effort and high impact. There is also no evidence it considered awarding a room loss allowance. It is also not inline with our remedies guidance, and we consider an award of £500 to be more appropriate to reflect the level of effort and inconvenience the resident has experienced.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response was appropriate and issued in line with its published timescales. When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response on 6 December 2023, the landlord should have treated this as a stage 2 complaint. Instead, it wrote to her on 21 December 2023 saying it believed the offer was fair and reasonable. It invited her to specify what she was unhappy about and to confirm if she wanted the complaint to progress to stage 2.
  2. As the resident had already explained why she remained dissatisfied it was unreasonable for the landlord not to escalate the complaint directly. This meant she had to contact the landlord again on 22 December 2023 to reiterate her concerns. The stage 2 complaint was ultimately acknowledged on 27 December 2023. 
  3. The landlord’s complaint policy says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. However, the landlord did not reply within this timeframe, and it was not until 23 January 2024 that it wrote to her advising that it was not able to respond within the timescale. The stage 2 response was not issued until 30 March 2024, 79 working days after the initial escalation request. The time taken for the landlord to reply was unreasonable and represented a failure in service.
  4. In the stage 2 response the landlord said it was unable to investigate issues that were more than 6 months old. Its complaint policy says it will not consider issues that occurred more than 6 months ago, unless there was evidence the issue had been raised but no action was taken. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code. While the landlord acknowledged that there had been historic reports, in the absence of any evidence of a complaint being raised prior to November 2023, its decision not to consider earlier events as part of the complaint was reasonable.
  5. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, in terms of the delay in escalating and responding at stage 2. However, the landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response and awarded £150 in recognition of it. Its complaint policy says it will award payments of between £76 and £150 when there have been delays or difficulties raising a complaint and delays providing a response.
  6. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  7. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the £150 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the formal complaint. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £150 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet and their request for compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £500 compensation (inclusive of the £225 previously offered) for the delays in the toilet repairs.
    3. Arranged to survey the design of the drainage system, and if required, produce a schedule of works for any outstanding remedial repairs to the pipework. Any works identified should be scheduled to start within 4 weeks of the survey. A copy of the schedule, and/or the results of the survey should be shared with both the resident and the service.
    4. Contacted the resident and agreed a mutually convenient time to inspect her flooring. The landlord should then consider the resident’s request for compensation in respect of damage to the floor and respond formally within 4 weeks of the inspection. The response should explain what the resident can do if she is dissatisfied with the landlords response.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay to the resident (if not already done so) the £150 compensation offered in respect of its complaint handling failures. The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure.