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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202422105)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422105

Sanctuary Housing Association

6 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the request to repair the resident’s roof.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house and is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association.
  2. On 22 December 2023, the resident reported that 2 tiles had fallen from her roof. The resident raised her first formal complaint with the landlord on 12 March 2024 as no action had been taken in relation to the roof repair. At the same time as making her complaint, she told the landlord there was a pocket of water and stains forming in her bedroom.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 March 2024, and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 March 2024. It said:
    1. it had conducted a review of the repair and that the delays were caused by a lack of contractor availability and bad weather
    2. the contractor would attend the resident’s property the following week
    3. the case had been passed to its Coordination Teams to monitor and track to completion
    4. for the delay it would like to offer £50 in compensation
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on 13 May 2024. The landlord told the resident on 6 June 2024 it had extended the deadline to respond to the complaint to 3 July 2024.
  5. On 23 September 2024, the landlord issued its first stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. the roof repair remained outstanding
    2. on 27 April 2024 its contractor had isolated a socket in the resident’s bedroom and noticed that felt membrane was damaged in the loft
    3. a quote for scaffolding was approved on 18 September 2024, and once this was erected a roofing contractor would assess the work required
    4. the Coordination Team would consult with the contractor to ensure further quotations were approved without delay, and a member of its team would contact the resident to discuss next steps
    5. it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delay and lack of contact
    6. it offered £1,774 compensation, broken down as:
      1. £1,024 for loss of enjoyment of her home (20% rent reduction from February 2024)
      2. £400 for time and trouble
      3. £250 for the failures in complaint handling
      4. £100 for damage to the internal decoration
    7. this compensation covered the impact to the resident, and any future impact up to 90 days following the stage 2 complaint response
  6. On 3 December 2024 the resident raised a second formal complaint due to the time taken to complete the roof repair. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 December 2024 and responded at stage 1 of its process on 17 December 2024. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £150 as a goodwill gesture for communication failings and further delays. It told the resident that an update would be provided on when the repairs would take place.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 December 2024 and on 11 February 2025 the landlord issued its second stage 2 response. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said:
    1. as part of the previous complaint response, it covered loss of enjoyment up to January 2025
    2. its Coordination Teams would continue to track and monitor the repairs, and the contractor would confirm directly with the resident a date for scaffolding to be erected
    3. due to ongoing delays and a continued inability to use a bedroom until works were likely completed in April 2025, it would offer further compensation
    4. it apologised for the delays experienced, inconvenience caused and poor communication
    5. it upheld the complaint and offered £918 compensation broken down as:
      1. £400 for the inconvenience caused, delays, poor record keeping and lack of updates
      2. £268 for the loss of enjoyment of the bedroom between 1 February 2025 to 30 April 2025 (20% rent reduction)
      3. £250 for the poor complaint handling
  8. The landlord completed the roof repair between 14 and 17 April 2025. It arranged with the resident to complete the internal repairs to the bedroom on 11 June 2025.
  9. The resident referred her case to us on 18 November 2024. At the time she wanted the repairs to be completed and regular updates about the repairs. She accepted the first offer of compensation from the landlord and the £1,774 was received by the resident in December 2024. She continued to communicate with us while the repairs were outstanding to express her frustration at the time being taken. She has since accepted the landlord’s second offer of compensation. This means, in total the resident has received £2,692 in compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

  1. We have considered whether it is fair for us to look at the landlord’s actions after its second stage 2 complaint response was issued on 11 February 2025. When looking at this case, the resident has already had to raise 2 formal complaints with the landlord about the roof repair. Therefore, it would not be fair to ask the resident to raise a third complaint about the same issue. Instead, we have decided to consider the actions of the landlord after the stage 2 complaint response was sent to 17 April 2025 when the roof repair was complete.
  2. We have also looked at whether there was a specific complaint made about how the landlord handled the resident’s internal repairs. In this case, the resident did not raise the internal repairs formally as a complaint. Instead, she explained the impact that the roof leak had on the property and that she could not use a bedroom. In its complaint process the landlord remedied the impact of this. Therefore, we will not focus on the landlord’s actions relating to the internal repair. Instead, we will consider the impact the time taken to complete the roof repair had on the resident which includes the loss of use of a bedroom.

Request to repair the roof

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says:
    1. emergency repairs are needed when there is a serious risk to a resident’s health, safety or the structure of the home – for example, a water leak coming through the ceiling is an emergency repair
    2. emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours
    3. all other repairs that are not emergencies but still need access are called appointed repairs
    4. appointed repairs will be completed within 28 days, at a time agreed with the resident
    5. if an inspection is needed, it will be arranged within 10 working days.
    6. if it cannot meet these timescales, it will keep the resident updated on the progress and expected completion time
  2. The resident initially called the landlord to say that 2 tiles had fallen from her roof onto her lawn. The landlord told the resident that it was only running an emergency repair service over the Christmas period and to call back on 2 January or report the issue online. While we appreciate the landlord may have had limited resources during this period, there is nothing within its policy or procedure to account for this. It was unfair to ask the resident to report the repair for a second time, rather than have a system in place to log the repair at the time. The resident had to take additional time to report the repair again in January, and this caused her some inconvenience.
  3. The resident submitted her repair again on 5 January 2024 using the landlord’s online repair form. However, it was not until the resident chased this repair on 23 January 2024, that the landlord raised the job with its contractor. The resident chased the landlord again on 15 February 2024, before raising her first formal complaint on 12 March 2024.
  4. The landlord’s actions did not align with its policy timescales. Fifty-two working days after first reporting the repair, no action had been taken by the landlord to either inspect the property or complete a repair. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord told the resident that the contractor would attend her property “next week” and that its team would monitor and track the repair to completion. However, the resident had to chase the landlord again on 16 April 2024 as the contractor did not attend. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  6. The contractor did attend the property on 30 April 2024 and asked for an “urgent” order to be raised to fix the roof leak. Despite this the resident had to chase the landlord again on 2 May 2024, as she had not received any update. On 8 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint due to the time taken to arrange the roof repair. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience at what was already a distressing time.
  7. Between 9 May and 25 July 2024 the resident chased the landlord at least 3 times for an update on her repair. It was not until 25 July 2024 that the landlord raised a job to erect scaffolding so the repair could be investigated further. This was 148 working days after the first report. The time taken was outside of its repair policy timescales. In addition, the landlord did not communicate the reasons for this delay clearly or proactively with the resident. This continued to cause the resident distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident chased the landlord 4 further times between 26 July and 23 September 2024, before it told the resident that the repair had been approved. The resident had been living with the roof leak for 190 working days and the landlord was still unable to give a definitive answer on when the repair would be completed. This increased the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. In response to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident asked the landlord about the possibility of a temporary fix to the roof leak. The landlord told her that it would contact the contractor to enquire about a temporary solution. The evidence shows that this was discussed with the contractor on 9 October 2024. The contractor said that it would update the landlord and the resident about the potential for a temporary fix.
  10. Despite this commitment the landlord, nor the contractor, arranged a temporary fix for the roof leak. Additionally, no update was provided to the resident on whether a temporary fix was possible. This was further evidence that the landlord’s communication about the roof leak issue was poor and that it did not follow through with actions it had promised.
  11. Between 26 September and 2 December 2024 the landlord was in regular communication with the contractor to try and arrange the repair for the resident. The contractor provisionally told the landlord the repair would be booked for 6 January 2025, but that this could change due to the weather or if it had resource issues. While there is evidence the landlord was monitoring the repair, there was a lack of updates provided to the resident during this period.
  12. This failure to proactively communicate with the resident caused her some further frustration, distress, and inconvenience. This impact was increased as it was a repeated failure of the landlord which it had already acknowledged and promised to improve in its complaint response.
  13. The failure of the landlord to effectively communicate contributed to the resident raising a second formal complaint on 3 December 2024. She told the landlord that the time taken to complete the repair was unfair and that the poor communication was unhelpful. The detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings is shown as she described how she had to move out of her bedroom due to the impact of the leaks.
  14. On 6 December 2024 the landlord cancelled the repair with the contractor and raised this again with a new contractor. This was because the first contractor did not have capacity to complete repairs for the landlord. However, the resident was not told about this change until the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 17 December 2024. This is further evidence that the landlord’s communication had not improved, despite its promise to do so in response to the resident’s first complaint.
  15. The landlord confirmed again to the resident that any internal repairs would be completed once the roof leak was fixed. This was a reasonable stance to take, as the root cause of the internal repairs was the leak. It did offer to complete a mould wash in the resident’s bedroom as a temporary measure, but the resident refused this as she did not believe it would make much difference to the impact she was facing.
  16. There were further delays between 18 December 2024 and 11 February 2025. During this period the landlord was waiting for the work to be approved internally, and there was confusion between the contractor and landlord over the works required. There is a lack of evidence to show that the resident was kept updated during this period. Instead, the landlord did not provide a comprehensive update to the resident until issuing its second stage 2 complaint response.
  17. Following the stage 2 complaint response the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on 3 March 2025. The evidence shows that the landlord did not update the resident until 21 March 2025. When it confirmed it had spoken with the contractor and the relevant works for the roof had been repaired. This was unreasonable and showed a lack of learning from the landlord after it had recognised communication as a failing in its complaint response. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
  18. After confirming with its contractor the landlord contacted the resident to say that scaffolding would be erected on 10 April 2025, and that work to the roof would begin on 14 April 2025. However, there was a short delay in completing the roof repair as the contractor had not ordered enough tiles. Given the time taken to attend the repair, it was unreasonable that the repair could not be undertaken due to an error by the contractor. This further delay caused the resident some unnecessary inconvenience.
  19. The roof leak was fixed on 17 April 2025. Following an internal inspection on 24 March 2025, internal repairs are scheduled for 11 June 2025.
  20. In summary, the time taken to complete the roof repair was unreasonable and the landlord did not follow its repairs policy. In addition, its communication throughout the process was poor. The resident was left to chase for updates, and even after it found failings in its first stage 2 complaint response, the landlord failed to improve. This caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  21. When determining a case, it is important not just to look at the actions of the landlord but also how it tried to put things right for the resident. Across 2 complaints the landlord apologised for its failings and has paid the resident compensation of:
    1. £1,292 for loss of enjoyment of her bedroom (20% rent reduction between 1 February 2024 and 30 April 2025)
    2. £800 for time, trouble and inconvenience
    3. £100 for damage to internal decorations
  22. This aligns with its compensation policy which sets out that it would pay up to a 20% rent reduction if a bedroom is out of use. It would also make payments of up to £400 if there has been a high impact to the resident because of delays, poor communication and preventing enjoyment of the home.
  23. These figures also broadly match our remedies guidance. This says that where there has been a significant impact to a resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 should be considered. And that consideration should be made for a partial rent refund if a failing has led to a resident losing use and enjoyment of their property. Therefore, the level of compensation offered by the landlord for its failings over this period was proportionate and fair.
  24. However, in this case there was a running theme of poor communication. The landlord repeatedly said that it would monitor and check the repairs but did not communicate updates to the resident. This left the resident chasing for answers and the poor communication significantly increased the worry and distress the resident felt.
  25. While these communication failings were recognised in both stage 2 complaint responses the landlord sent, the evidence shows that there was a lack of learning. This failure to demonstrate sufficient learning in the case continued after the first stage 2 complaint response, and did not improve after the second stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, when considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
  26. The landlord will be ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation to cover the period between February and April 2025. This is to acknowledge the impact of the poor communication and further inconvenience to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair her roof.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for its failings
    2. pay the resident £100 (in addition to the compensation already paid) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused
    3. provide evidence to the Service it has complied with the orders above

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider:
    1. contacting the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns
    2. whether it should pay further compensation to cover the loss of the bedroom for the period after 30 April 2025