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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202421010)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421010

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 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 leaks into the property.
  2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began in 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom flat which occupies the first and second floors of a 3 storey converted house. The resident lives there with her adult daughter.
  2. On 6 July 2023, the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the roof of the building to resolve a leak into the property. The landlord recalled the contractor on 21 September 2023 when the resident reported that her ceiling was leaking again. The contractor completed further roof repairs on 14 November 2023.
  3. On 20 December 2023, the resident reported a further leak into the bedroom of the property during rainfall. The landlord’s contractor attended on 26 March 2024 and inspected the roof with a cherry picker. It reported, “we cannot see any more reasons why this property may be getting damp or leaking”.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 April 2024. She said that her bedroom ceiling was still leaking, and the water was now going through the floor into her living room below. The resident said the landlord had told her that repairs to the roof had been completed the previous month, but she had not seen anyone attend for these.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024. It said that it would be arranging a joint visit by a plumber and roofer to assess the roof and arrange any necessary works. It said once it had done this it would arrange repairs to the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
  6. The resident phoned the landlord the same day and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  7. On 25 October 2024, the landlord’s contractor put up scaffolding to inspect the roof. On 30 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that the scaffolding was obstructing the signal to her satellite TV dish. She asked the landlord to either reimburse her the cost of her subscription whilst the scaffolding was up or relocate her dish.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 3 January 2025. It:
    1. Apologised for the significant delays in addressing the roof leak and the fact the resident had been chasing repeatedly for updates.
    2. Acknowledged that its complaint responses had been delayed at both stage 1 and 2.
    3. Said that works to the roof had still not been scheduled.
    4. Asked the resident to provide photos of the scaffolding obstructing her satellite TV dish, and her subscription bills, before it could consider compensation for this.
    5. Offered the resident compensation of £775 composed of:
      1. £375 for loss of enjoyment of her bedroom.
      2. £250 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      3. £150 for its complaint handling.

Events since the landlord’s final complaint response

  1. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint on 22 January 2025. She said she was unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord had offered, and that the roof had still not been repaired.
  2. On 11 February 2025, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £1,068. This represented £243 of reimbursement for the resident’s satellite TV bills and £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by her dish being obstructed.
  3. On 18 March 2025, the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the roof of the building.
  4. On 7 May 2025, the landlord told us that remedial repairs to the resident’s property were due to begin on 19 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had made a previous complaint about roof leaks. It said it had provided a stage 1 response to that complaint on 18 July 2023. We have seen no evidence that complaint was ever escalated to stage 2. As this was a separate complaints process to the one which we are investigating, this report will consider only events after 18 July 2023.

Leaks

  1. On 21 September 2023, the landlord appropriately recalled its contractor after the resident reported that water was still leaking from her ceiling. The contractor attended on 28 September 2023. It identified that the leaks were due to a separate issue unrelated to the repairs it had previously carried out. It sent the landlord a quote for further works.
  2. The contractor returned and completed the further works on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that it aims to complete all major repairs within 90 days. Roof works can reasonably be considered a major repair due to the equipment and materials required. The works were therefore completed within the landlord’s advertised timescale.
  3. We note that since completing the initial repairs in July 2023, the landlord had been attempting to arrange remedial works to the resident’s bedroom ceiling. However, it put these on hold after the leak reappeared again on 20 December 2023.
  4. We appreciate that leaks, particularly those only apparent during rainfall, can be difficult to trace and diagnose. The evidence in this case indicates that the leak of 20 December 2023 was unrelated to any previous works completed by the landlord’s contractor. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its specialist contractor’s diagnosis of the earlier leaks and required repairs. Therefore, we do not find any evidence of service failure in its handling of the leaks prior to 20 December 2023.
  5. On 20 December 2023, the resident reported the bedroom ceiling was still leaking. The landlord recalled its contractor again on 3 January 2024. The contractor attended on 23 January 2024. It identified that it would need a cherry picker to fully inspect the roof. It sent the landlord a quote for this on 25 January 2024. However, the landlord’s records indicate it did not receive this. On 6 February 2024, the landlord chased the repair up with the contractor and asked it to resend its quote.
  6. The landlord raised an order for the quoted works on 20 February 2024. It approved this and released it to the contractor 8 days later.
  7. On 7 March 2024, the landlord asked its contractor whether it had scheduled the roof inspection. The contractor told the landlord it would be attending on 16 March 2024. The landlord appropriately passed this update on to the resident. However, the contractor failed to attend on this date. The landlord only became aware of this when the resident informed it on or around 19 March 2024.
  8. It appropriately contacted the contractor the same day, which said it had rescheduled for 23 March 2024. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident of the rescheduled appointment. The contractor did attend on this second occasion. This was 94 days from the resident reporting the leak, outside of the landlord’s timescale for major repairs.
  9. The contractor was unable to identify any defects with the roof which could be causing leaks. It sent its report to the landlord on 27 Match 2024. It asked the landlord to “please look at photos provided for someone to suggest what they think may need doing to this roof because there are no more areas left to repair. Or would suggest…to put up a new scaffold.” The landlord has not provided any records to show that it advanced either of these options. Nor did it update the resident on its contractor’s findings until she contacted it on 12 April 2024.
  10. On this date, the landlord told the resident that “the job was complete”. Whilst this was technically correct, it would have unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations that repairs had been carried out – rather than that the contractor had been unable to identify any. This likely contributed to the resident making her complaint on 28 April 2024, when the leak into her bedroom continued. She provided the landlord with photos of this on 29 April 2024.
  11. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord referred the matter back to its contractor. On 20 May 2024, the contractor asked the landlord to raise a works order for a plumber and roofer to attend and investigate the leak further. The landlord told the resident it would be arranging this in its stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024. However, it failed to raise and approve the required works order until 19 June 2024 – 3 weeks later. This was an unreasonable delay.
  12. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately confirmed it would complete ceiling repairs to the resident’s property. It also managed her expectations by saying this would not be done until it had determined the cause of the leak.
  13. The landlord advised that it had not upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 because “no leaks have been found by the contractors and the Works Coordinators Team have kept you up to date on the repair and raised any concerns you have had”.
  14. The landlord’s records support its position that it appropriately kept the resident up to date on the repairs. They show that it contacted both the resident and the contractor every 1 to 2 weeks from raising the works order until its contractor confirmed it had inspected the roof. However, as established above, the landlord failed to appropriately inform the resident of the outcome of its contractor’s visit on 23 March 2024.
  15. The landlord’s position that “no leaks have been found by the contractors” was factually correct. However, it did not acknowledge that it had failed to take further steps to investigate the leak following this. The resident had continued to report leaks during rainfall in the period leading up the contractor attending. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to continue its investigation. Instead, it closed the works order and failed to take any further action until the resident made her complaint.
  16. On 9 July 2024, the landlord’s contractor provided a quote for it to erect scaffolding to inspect the roof. It is unclear why the contractor did not request this back on 20 May 2024 as part of the original works order. Its report following its visit on 23 March 2024 had already established that this would be required for any further investigations.
  17. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not approve this quote until 9 October 2024. The reasons for this unreasonable 3 month delay are unclear. During this period, the landlord’s records do not show that it offered timely and proactive updates to the resident, as it had previously. The only contact recorded between landlord and resident is when the resident contacted the landlord.
  18. The contractor erected the scaffolding on 25 October 2024. After accessing the roof, the contractor requested an asbestos survey of the tiles. It is unclear from the landlord’s records exactly when it requested this, only that it was at some point prior to 30 October 2024. The landlord’s asbestos contractor completed the survey on 19 December 2024, using the existing scaffolding.
  19. The landlord received the asbestos survey on 26 December 2024. It forwarded it on to its contractor the same day. However, the landlord resent this on both 7 January 2025 and 14 January 2025, with the contractor saying it had only received it on the latter date.
  20. The contractor identified that asbestos needed removing from the roof before it could carry out any works. This caused further, but unavoidable, delays meaning repairs to the roof were not completed until 18 March 2025.
  21. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 January 2025. Within this it appropriately apologised for the “significant delays” in arranging the works and the “exceptional inconvenience” this had caused the resident. It offered the resident a total of £625 compensation composed of £250 for her time, trouble and inconvenience and £375 for the loss of enjoyment of her bedroom.
  22. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will compensate residents up to 20% of rent for the period a bedroom is unusable. We note the resident’s comments that she was concerned about her bedroom ceiling collapsing due to the leaks, which led to her sleeping in her daughter’s bedroom at various points. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord felt the room was unusable or advised the resident as such.
  23. The landlord’s offer of £375 for loss of enjoyment represents approximately 5% of the resident’s rent between 20 December 2023 (when the resident reported the leak) and its stage 2 complaint response. It is our view that this was a reasonable offer under the circumstances.
  24. However, the landlord said this amount was to cover “up until works are due to be completed”. It did not give any indication within its response as to when this this was. The roof works were not completed until 18 March 2025, and it is our view that the loss of enjoyment should have been paid at least until this point. We therefore make an order for compensation equivalent to 5% of the resident’s monthly rent for this further 10 week period.
  25. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to pay up to £400 “in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience”. Considering the length of delays and “exceptional inconvenience” for the resident, which the landlord had acknowledged it would have been appropriate to offer this maximum amount. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a further £150 compensation for her distress and inconvenience.
  26. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reasonably asked the resident to provide further evidence so that it could consider her claim for compensation for loss of her satellite TV service. The landlord’s records show that the resident provided this, and it appropriately reimbursed her for her subscription costs. It also reasonably offered her a further £50 for the time and trouble the matter had caused her.
  27. We note the 2 month delay between the landlord’s contractor completing works to the roof and the landlord starting repairs to the resident’s ceiling. However, given the history of leaks in the property, it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure the roof works had resolved the issue, and allow the ceiling to dry out, before commencing work.
  28. In summary, the landlord acknowledged its unreasonable delay in resolving the leak and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to this. However, its offer of compensation was not sufficient to offer reasonable redress for the impact on the resident, or the further 2 months after its stage 2 response during which she was unable to enjoy full use of her bedroom. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. On 1 April 2024, it became a statutory requirement for landlords to comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires a landlord to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working day and provide its stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days. The landlord can extend its response time by up to a further 10 working days providing it explains this to the resident and informs them of the expected timescale for its response.
  2. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 28 April 2024 and the landlord appropriately acknowledge this on 1 May 2024. It advised the resident it would respond within 10 working days.
  3. On 15 May 2024, 9 working days later, the landlord emailed the resident telling her it was extending the timeframe for its response. However, it failed to advise her when she could expect to receive its response.
  4. The landlord did provide its response on 29 May 2024. This was 9 working days after it notified the resident of the extension, and so in keeping with the time limit set by the Code.
  5. At stage 2, the Code also requires landlords to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on the day that she received the stage 1 response. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge her complaint until 13 June 2024 – 11 working days later. The landlord said it would provide its response within 20 working days. This being a requirement of the Code.
  6. On 27 June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to extend the date for its stage 2 complaint response. As at stage 1, the landlord failed to provide an expected date for its response. It said only that it would contact the resident again in 20 working days. As the Code only allows landlords to extend their stage 2 response by a further 20 working days, the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response at that point.
  7. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 response once a further 20 working days had elapsed. Nor has it provided evidence that it contacted the resident about her complaint again as it had committed to.
  8. The landlord took until 3 January 2024 to provide its stage 2 complaint response. This was over 7 months after the resident had escalated her complaint.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it was “disappointed” its complaint responses had been delayed at both stages – although as established above the stage 1 response time was in keeping with the Code.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for failings in its complaint handling. Its compensation policy says it should offer up to £150 for “delays or difficulties raising a complaint, delays in giving a response leading to increased contact from the customer”. This amount is also in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. We feel this is appropriate considering the length of delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Due to this, we find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,148 composed of:
      1. The £375 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for loss of enjoyment of her bedroom.
      2. The £250 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      3. The £243 it agreed to reimburse her for her satellite TV subscription.
      4. The £50 it offered for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by her loss of satellite TV signal.
      5. A further £80 for loss of enjoyment of her bedroom between 4 January 2025 and 18 March 2025.
      6. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks.

The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid to the resident from the above.

  1. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with this order to us.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £150 compensation offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.