Sanctuary Housing Association (202419464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419464

Sanctuary Housing Association

26 June 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 reports of:
1. Faulty windows
2. Faulty back door.
3. Kitchen disrepair.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property in January 2023 with her husband and 2 children. The property is a 4 bedroom house. Her son is epileptic.
On 5 January 2023 the resident reported disrepair throughout the property. This included concerns that the back door and windows throughout the property were rotten, and she asked the landlord to consider replacing them. On 13 January 2023 the landlord raised works to address “rotten and leaking windows” and noted that the “rear door is also rotten.”
On 8 March 2023 a surveyor inspected the property and recommended the landlord urgently replace all the windows and the back door. On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor issued a quote for the replacement of all windows and the rear door. On 30 March 2023 the resident complained that the windows were rotten and leaking which was damaging the floor. She explained that this was causing excessive cold in the property and damp and mould, which was damaging her family’s health.
On 20 June 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to renew the windows or replace the kitchen which had “unsanitary worktops.” On 1 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It advised it was “reviewing a further quote” for the windows and would be in touch when it had done so. It apologised for “all delays experienced and communication” and offered the resident £250 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 January 2024. She complained that the property was difficult to heat due to the rotten windows, and that this was costing her high energy bills. She explained the related cold, damp and mould was impacting her family’s health. She also explained there was a lack of plug sockets in the kitchen, and that the countertops were too close to the stove which posed a fire hazard. She asked the landlord to offer higher compensation and fully replace the windows and kitchen.
Over the next 2 months the resident regularly chased a stage 2 response, and the landlord responded at various stages to push the deadline back. On 22 March 2024 the resident complained again about the windows and the impact of this on her family and the property.
This pattern of communication continued over the following 2 months until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. The landlord explained that it had approved a quote to replace the windows and anticipated it would complete this by the end of August 2024. It also explained that it had inspected the kitchen in January and February 2023 and considered it was in a good state of repair.
As redress, the landlord offered the resident £2323. This was broken down as:
1. £400 for inconvenience in chasing repairs
2. £250 for complaint handling delays.
3. £1673 for loss of enjoyment of her home from 22 February 2023 to 31 August 2024.
On 7 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident it had made an administrative error and that it would not be replacing the windows. It advised it would be in touch with further information. The resident then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 August 2024.
Following our intervention in March 2025, the landlord contacted the resident on 21 March 2025 to try and organise a visit to attempt a repair on the windows. The resident declined this and advised she wanted them replaced.
On 25 April 2024 the landlord inspected the kitchen and noted that a full replacement was necessary. On 14 May 2025 the landlord advised the resident it would replace the front windows only.
The resident remains unhappy with this outcome. To resolve things, she would like a higher sum of compensation and for the landlord to replace all windows.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty rear door and faulty windows.

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the windows and doors in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete all non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) obliges landlords to ensure ‘any residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor’. Furthermore, a dwelling should:
1. Be designed, constructed and maintained with non-hazardous materials.
2. Be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
3. Provide adequate protection from all potential hazards prevailing in the local environment.
It goes onto list a series of such hazards, including:
1. Damp and mould growth – this includes threats to health from house dust mites and mould or fungal spores resulting from dampness or high humidity.
2. Excess cold – threats to health from sub-optimal indoor temperatures.
3. Fire – covers threats from exposure to uncontrolled fire and associated smoke in a dwelling, and defects to the electricity supply, meters, fuses, wiring, sockets or switches.
The resident first reported that her windows and rear door were rotten on 5 January 2023. The landlord raised works to assess these on 13 January 2023. Following this it did not take any further action until it raised a duplicate works order on 23 February 2023. Its surveyor then attended the property on 8 March 2023 and recommended that the landlord urgently replace the windows and rear door. It noted that they were in poor condition and provided “no thermal or sound insulation.”
It is unclear why it took the landlord 62 days to inspect the windows and rear door. While we accept it is not reasonable to expect that major works of this nature are completed within 28 days as per its repairs timescales, the survey itself should reasonably have been completed within this timeframe. Therefore, we consider the landlord failed to carry out the survey with the appropriate urgency.
We can see the landlord then obtained a quote from its contractor on 29 March 2023 for the replacement of the windows and rear door. However, following this, it failed to take action to progress things. We can see the landlord decided on 5 April 2023 that it needed a further quote for its tender process. However, the records do not indicate it took any action to procure this until almost a year later.
From April 2023 we can see consistent internal email exchanges up until June 2024 in which staff are chasing senior staff for clarity on whether the window replacement has been approved or not. These emails indicate a significant lack of clarity or cohesion in the landlord’s approach to progressing things.
For instance, internal emails from senior staff on 26 October 2023 appear to suggest that the works are approved, only for emails on 1 December 2023 to note that “comparative quotes are needed for us to process.” Given the landlord decided it needed comparative quotes back in April 2023, it is unclear why it had failed to procure these by this stage. We consider this unnecessarily delayed any resolution and caused the resident distress.
The confusion and lack of progress continued from December 2023 onwards. For instance, emails on 7 December 2023 note that “central admin…have not received a reason why the windows and doors need replacing.” This is concerning given the surveyor set out the reasons for this in the 8 March 2023 report. On 13 December 2023 internal emails note that “there is insufficient evidence that all the windows require urgent replacement and so works of this magnitude cannot be approved on one quote so denied.”
However, on 19 December 2023 the window replacement is then referred to a different senior member of staff for their consideration, indicating that the landlord had not formally decided against it after all. Internal emails on this date also note that the landlord had contacted another contactor for a separate quote, but there is no evidence of it doing so. On 23 January 2024 internal emails note that “I believe the windows and doors renewals were rejected.” However, there is no further explanation recorded for this.
The contractor then provided a quote for replacing the windows on 20 February 2024, indicating that a formal decision had not been made after all. Given the landlord decided it needed this further quote in April 2023, it is unclear why it took 10 months to procure it. The records we have seen during this period indicate consistent confusion on its part as to what it intended to do, and we consider this approach likely played a significant role in the delay in obtaining this quote. We also consider this significantly delayed any resolution of the issue.
The confusion and lack of action on the landlord’s part continued after this point. For instance, internal emails on 15 April 2024 ask senior staff “do you consider they [the windows] need replacing urgently.” Emails on 24 April 2024 then note “I cannot give an answer as to why the window renewals were declined.”
Emails from 3 June 2024 note that senior staff had by this stage considered the new quote and decided that the full window replacement was too costly, and that the property “is very well kept.” The emails note that the landlord instead intended to ask its contractor to quote for the front windows and rear door only.
However, it then failed to take any action to procure a quote for these more restricted works. It is also unclear what evidence it used to inform its position on the “well kept” nature of the property. The most recent related objective evidence which the landlord had at this stage was the 8 March 2023 survey, which recommended an urgent replacement of the windows and rear door. Therefore, it is unclear how its decision to restrict the works was suitably informed by this. We consider this is another example of the landlord’s failure to make formal, evidence-based decisions on what works it intended to do.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2024 and advised it would not replace the windows, but offered no explanation for this. Given it had advised the her since January 2023 that it intended do so, and that it was taking action to progress things, this letter must have been significantly distressing. This distress was also likely compounded by the lack of any detailed explanation about the change in position.
The resident asked the landlord to explain this on 16 August 2024, and it did not respond until 19 September 2024 when it advised it would attempt repairs only. It is unclear why it took a month to respond, and in the absence of any evidence to explain this in records we consider the delay was unreasonable. We also consider it likely compounded the resident’s distress. This also contradicts the decision it appears senior staff made in June 2024 to procure a quote for the replacement of some of the windows.
Following its 7 June 2024 email, the landlord took no further action to try and schedule the repairs it had apparently decided to attempt until our intervention in March 2023. Given its confused approach and the delays up until this point, this was poor and likely caused the resident significant distress.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2025 and attempted to schedule an appointment to attempt some repairs on the windows and rear door, which she refused. We understand the resident has continued to refuse these attempts since she considers the landlord should complete a full of replacement of the windows and rear door.
Based on the records we have seen following the March emails, there is still a lack of clarity on the landlord’s part as to what works it intends to offer. For instance, it appears to have offered the resident a partial replacement of some windows in emails on 14 May 2025, contradicting its previous emails which offered repairs only.
Ultimately, we consider the landlord’s decision making in response to the resident’s reports of a faulty rear door and windows was confused and lacked coherence from January 2023 to May 2025. We have seen consistent evidence of staff unsuccessfully chasing relevant teams for decisions throughout the period. We have seen the landlord delayed unreasonably in procuring a second quote for the works. We consider the landlord failed to make a suitably evidence based decision when it decided not to proceed with the full replacement, and then failed to take any action to pursue the more limited scope of works it decided on from June 2024 to March 2025.
We consider these omissions are responsible for the significant delay in addressing the faulty windows and doors, and are the reason the situation remains unresolved.
We note that the resident continuously reported that the faulty windows and rear door were generating the kinds of hazards that are listed under the HHSRS.
For instance, she explained in her stage 1 complaint in March 2023 that it was not possible to heat the house beyond 16c-17c, and that it was around 10c whenever the heating had not been on full blast for several hours. She repeatedly explained that her children’s health was being impacted. We can also see that the resident’s social worker and her son’s epilepsy doctor wrote to the landlord in April 2024 and implored it to complete the works, both stressing the physiological and psychological impact of the cold, damp and mould. Despite this, the landlord continuously failed to take suitable action to ensure the resident’s property was free of these hazards.
For this reason, we will order the landlord to urgently arrange a 3rd party survey of the windows and rear doors given the passage of time since the 8 March 2023 inspection. We will order it to then produce an action plan, with timescales, for any works recommended by the surveyor to address the faulty windows and rear door. We will also order the landlord pays the resident compensation to put right the likely distress caused by its omissions.
The landlord’s policy on compensation payments for time trouble and inconvenience permits payments up to £400.
It is clear to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s omissions have caused the resident significant inconvenience and distress. We consider this is clearly evidenced by her repeated attempts to chase the works from January 2023 to March 2025. We consider the resident’s distress was more pronounced than it would have been in other circumstances given her child’s vulnerability. We note that the 8 March 2023 survey noted the property had “no thermal or sound insulation” due to the condition of the windows, and how distressing it must have been for the resident to live in these conditions for over 2 years.
We recognise landlord has already paid the resident the maximum £400 set out in its policy for the inconvenience caused by its delays from January 2023 up until May 2024. However, following this it then failed to take suitable action to progress things for a further 10 months.
With all this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident a further £400 in recognition of the continued impact of its inaction from 23 May 2024 until 21 March 2025.
We also note that the landlord has paid the resident £1673 for loss of enjoyment of her home due to the faulty windows and rear door from 22 February 2023 until 31 August 2024. This sum equates to approximately £88 per month. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays the resident a further £88 per month for loss of enjoyment of her home from 1 September 2024 until 21 March 2025 to reflect its failure to take action to progress things during this period. This equates to a further payment of £594.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of kitchen disrepair.

On 13 January 2023 the landlord inspected the property and noted that the “kitchen is in a poor condition…back of units are falling off…work tops are damaged.” It then raised a works order and assigned it an 84 day priority. However, the order does not set out any specific works. The landlord should have set out a clear plan of action regarding which works needed carrying out. Following this order, the landlord should have attempted works to address the issues it identified within 28 days as per its repairs policy. It failed to do so, and we consider this likely caused the resident distress.
Following this the resident did not any further raise concerns about kitchen unit disrepair until 20 June 2023 when she complained that she was “living with…unsanitary worktops and cupboards.” The landlord should have raised works to inspect the property to reach a view on whether it needed to raise any repairs. It also should have been minded to do so urgently given it had already identified that the ”back of units are falling off [and] work tops damaged” in January 2023, and had yet to follow through on this. However, there is no record it took any action in response to this email.
On 4 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that her kitchen sink was leaking and the back of the housing unit had become sodden and mouldy. The landlord fixed the leak on 8 December 2023, which was prompt and within its repairs timescales. It also raised works on the same day to replace the unit which housed the sink.
In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request of 7 January 2024 she set out a more detailed set of concerns about the kitchen. She explained that there was a lack of plug sockets throughout the kitchen which meant that her and her family were forced to “daisy chain” power cables for appliances across the floor which posed health and safety risks. She also complained that the kitchen units were to close to the hob and oven which posed fire safety risks.
We note that this is the first incidence we have seen in which the resident explicitly raised health and safety concerns about the design of the kitchen. Given she advised that this design was generating hazards which are listed in the HHSRS, this should have prompted the landlord to schedule an inspection to reach a view on what, if anything, it needed to do to ensure the property met these standards. However, it failed to do so.
We can see it offered to attend to replace the kitchen unit which housed the sink on 6 February 2024, however, the resident declined this offer. The repair records note that the resident’s husband had opted to complete the repair instead. We note the landlord acted positively by seeking to complete these specific works.
However, we also note that, even if the resident had permitted it to do so, these works would not have addressed the health and safety concerns the resident raised on 7 January 2024 about the more general design of the kitchen. We therefore consider the landlord missed an opportunity at this stage to inspect the kitchen and verify whether there were health and safety hazards which it needed to rectify.
Following this there was no further discussion about the resident’s concerns until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. It explained that it had visited the property in January 2023 and February 2023 and found the kitchen was in good condition. It advised the resident to raise any specific concerns she had via its repairs service. It also advised that it would send an electrician to inspect the plug sockets.
The landlord acted positively by raising works to inspect the sockets. However, it took over 4 months to do so, and we can see no reasonable justification for this delay. It also exceeded its repairs timescales significantly given she raised the issue on 7 January 2024. Its response also failed to acknowledge and raise works to address the health and safety concerns the resident raised about the fire risks posed by the layout of the kitchen units. This is disappointing, and likely caused the resident further distress given its previous failures to follow through on the concerns she raised in January and June 2023.
The landlord inspected the plug sockets on 10 June 2024. Given it committed to the works on 23 May 2024, this was within its timescales. However, the records offer no insight as to the landlord’s position on the sockets, or whether it considered they posed a health and safety hazard. This is disappointing, and does not reassure us that it took suitable steps to assure itself that the sockets were not hazardous. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord shared the outcome of this inspection with the resident, which likely caused her distress.
Following this there was no further communication between either party about the resident’s health and safety concerns. However, on 25 April 2025, the landlord inspected the kitchen and found that it “would need a full replacement as the kitchen does not meet health and safety around the hob and oven.” It raised works to do so on the same day, and has advised the Ombudsman that these are due to be completed in late June 2025.
Ultimately then, we can see the landlord failed to follow through on any of the works it raised related to the kitchen units from January 2023 until it offered to replace one of these units in February 2024. We can see it then failed to address the more specific health and safety concerns the resident raised about the kitchen design in January 2024 for 15 months. We can see no reasonable explanation for this delay in the records, and we therefore consider it was unreasonable. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays the resident compensation to put this right.
We recognise the landlord’s policy only permits payments for inconvenience up to £400. However, our own guidance sets out that payments between £600 and £1000 are appropriate to put right failings which have caused significant impacts to residents. Given the length of the delays here, and that the landlord has not yet recognised its failings or offered any redress, we do not consider that £400 would be appropriate. For this reason, we have calculated the appropriate sum using our own guidance.
In doing so, we have considered that 15 months is a significant period of delay, and that this likely caused the resident significant distress. We have considered the landlord’s repeated failure to follow through on works throughout 2023. We have considered the resident’s vulnerability, and her view that she was unable to use the hob and oven from January 2024 onwards due to concerns about starting a fire. We have also considered that the health and safety hazards which the landlord eventually went onto identify in April 2025 following our intervention were identical to the concerns the resident raised in January 2024.
However, we have balanced this with the few positive actions the landlord took throughout the period, such as when it offered to replace one of the units in February 2024. We also recognise that it is now going about replacing the kitchen in full. With all this in mind, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation.
The resident advised the Ombudsman on 26 June 2025 that the landlord has failed to meet its projected timescales for replacing the kitchen. Given it advised that this would be completed by late June, we will also order it to set out an action plan, with timescales, for any outstanding works related to the kitchen replacement.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and address them within 10 working days. It will then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and address them within 20 working days. When it is unable to do so it will update residents and provide new timescales.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 30 March 2023, and the landlord issued a response on 1 January 2024. This was 98 working days past its timescales, and it failed to provide meaningful explanations for the delay during this period.
The landlord then issued its stage 2 response 76 working days late. We can see it contacted the resident several times throughout this period to advise it needed more time to investigate things. However, we do not consider this was enough to mitigate such a period of delay, especially since these updates did not explain what exactly was causing the delay. We consider both these periods of delay likely caused the resident distress.
Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have adversely, but not permanently, impacted residents.
We note that the landlord has already paid the resident £250 as redress for these delays, which sits in the middle of our scale. We also note that the impact caused by these delays likely amounted to continued frustration, as opposed to the more significant impacts caused by its delays in progressing the works. The landlord has also acknowledged this again in recent emails to the Ombudsman, and provided evidence of further training that it has offered staff to avoid similar issues recurring.
With all this mind, we consider the landlord has already done enough to put right its complaint handling omissions.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:
  1. Faulty windows.
  2. Faulty back door.
  3. Kitchen disrepair.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £1694, made up of:
1. £400 for its omissions in handling her reports of the faulty windows and back door.
2. £594 for her loss of enjoyment of the property due to the faulty windows from 1 September 2024 to 21 March 2025.
3. £700 for its omissions in handling her reports of kitchen disrepair.
The landlord is to arrange for a 3rd party surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection report must include a current assessment of any damp and mould in the property and a position on the current condition of the windows. The landlord must consider the immediacy of any repairs or replacements identified, in accordance with any risks, and the time taken to complete them so far. If there are any works required, the landlord must provide an action plan with defined timescales for it to complete the work.
Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS and taking into account the vulnerabilities in the household.
The landlord is to set out an action plan, with timescales, for any outstanding works related to the kitchen replacement.
The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.