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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202443875)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443875

Sanctuary Housing Association

25 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 response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property.
  2. The Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat in a converted house that the landlord, which is a registered provided, owns and manages. The landlord let the ground floor property to the resident under a secure tenancy agreement in 1986.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that hoarding was taking place at the neighbouring property over a period of at least 10 years. He reported fire safety concerns due to the number of stored belongings in the neighbour’s property. The building had rodent and fly infestations that the resident said may be related to the neighbour’s hoarding.
  3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2024 about his neighbour’s hoarded rubbish, the associated fire risk, and a pest infestation. He said that the landlord had not addressed these concerns by enforcing the tenancy agreement.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 June 2024, and it responded to him on 28 June 2024. It partially upheld the complaint, and it said:
    1. It had tried to gain access to the neighbouring property.
    2. It was working with external care and support agencies, and it would consider legal options if it needed to escalate its response. However, it could not provide specific details for confidentiality reasons.
    3. Its complaint handling had not been within its service standards and so it offered him £50 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience it had caused.
  5. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2024 about his neighbour’s hoarding, and their refusal to allow access for pest control and fire safety repairs. He also complained that the landlord had not taken any action despite being aware of the danger the matter posed to his welfare and safety.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 2 December 2024, and it sent its final response to the resident on 27 January 2025. It partially upheld the complaint, and it said:
    1. It was doing everything to support his neighbour in maintain his tenancy to an acceptable standard, but data protection prevented it from sharing further information.
    2. It had not responded to his report of a fly infestation dated 12 May 2024 until 4 June 2024 for which it apologised.
    3. Its service level had fallen below its expectations. It offered the resident £175. It itemised this as £25 for its delayed stage 1 response, £50 for its delayed stage 2 response and £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said that, to put the matters right, the landlord should address his reports by enforcing the terms of his neighbour’s tenancy agreement. He would also like it to install a fire safety door and fire alarms in the neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained about a heightened risk of fire caused by hoarding at the neighbouring property dating back to 2015. This assessment focuses on the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues in the resident’s formal complaint of 12 May 2024 from 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. The historical issues, however, provide useful contextual background to the complaint. This is in keeping with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. This says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that a resident has not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. While this Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim he may wish to seek independent legal advice.
  3. The resident is concerned about health and safety at the property. While the Ombudsman can take a view on this, it is not within our jurisdiction or expertise to make decisions about building safety or to decide whether a landlord has been negligent of this. The fire service enforces landlords’ legal fire safety obligations, while the Regulator for Social Housing may consider how well it meet regulatory standards. We can assess whether the landlord responded in keeping with its policies, procedures, and relevant legislation. But we cannot tell the landlord to act against the resident’s neighbour.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property

  1. The resident reported concerns about fire safety related to the hoarding behaviour of the upstairs neighbour to the landlord in August 2023. In response to the resident’s reports, the landlord:
    1. Contacted the resident’s neighbour, inspected the property, and discussed the condition of it with him within 10 working days.
    2. Issued appropriate correspondence to the neighbour about its expected tenancy management standards in keeping with its tenancy management procedure.
    3. Completed monthly property inspections in the neighbouring property between August 2023 and February 2024 to check on its condition.
    4. Phoned a care co-ordinator to discuss the matter on 12 April 2024.
    5. Pursued legal action in March 2024 to gain access and complete a gas safety check in the neighbouring property. However, it withdrew its claim in May 2024 when it learned that the property did not have a gas supply.
    6. Registered the resident’s reports about the behaviour of his neighbour as an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case. However, it did not take further action until a month later when it asked the resident to confirm if the matters were ongoing. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy which says it should respond to ASB reports within 5 working days.
    7. Left voicemail messages for the resident to call back when it was unable to speak to him about his concerns.
    8. Completed pest control treatments in the property on undisclosed dates in response to reports of vermin issues.
  2. We expect landlords to keep and supply records of the housing services it provides as evidence of its actions. We requested evidence of correspondence, engagement with social services and mental health teams, legal action, vulnerability assessments, hoarding risk assessments/impact assessments, improvement plans, and any other multi agency engagement. We received sufficient evidence to reach a decision on the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord has not fully provided the items requested which is a failing.
  3. There is no evidence that, in keeping with its tenancy management procedure and its repairs, and hoarding guidance policies, the landlord:
    1. Completed a hoarding initial assessment form.
    2. Established a formal action plan with the neighbour to address his hoarding such as by using its hoarding tool kit.
    3. Referred the property to the fire service for it to assess any fire safety risks associated with hoarding.
    4. Established, or attended regular multi-agency meetings with support agencies, beyond holding conversations with a care-coordinator.
    5. Engaged with the local authority environmental health team about the reported hoarding matters, pest control, and health and safety concerns.
    6. Considered issuing possession proceedings, noting its decisions, and the reasons for its decisions, with reference to any other intervention or engagement it may have pursued.
    7. Communicated with the resident about his fire safety concerns. The Ombudsman’s May 2021 Spotlight report on cladding and fire safety says an absence of information can cause significant distress for residents therefore, landlords should be initiative-taking and update residents regularly, even where there is little or no change.
    8. Responded to the resident’s reports of a fly infestation. This caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter via the complaints procedure.
  4. The landlord told the resident that it could not enforce the disposal of rubbish under the terms of the tenancy but that its properties needed to be in a safe condition. The landlord’s advice was misleading. It should have explained that if the rubbish became a nuisance, or a fire safety risk, it may have been able to take tenancy enforcement action.
  5. The landlord’s hoarding guidance says that enforcement should be a last resort, and its focus should be on working with residents to manage hoarding behaviours. It also says that it aims to strike a balance between managing a hoarding situation, supporting, and building trust, and ensuring it deals with any health and safety risks posed to residents and the building. The landlord was qualified to decide whether it was reasonable or proportionate to take enforcement action and whether the matter met the pre-action conditions courts impose on claimants. However, it did not explain these matters to the resident, and it therefore missed the opportunity to manage his expectations.
  6. The landlord explained to the resident that “smoke detection was normally a resident’s responsibility and is not usually enforced.” This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it is not responsible for checking if smoke detectors work properly. However, it also says it may complete repairs it is not responsible for if a resident is vulnerable. The landlord had installed heat detectors in the resident’s property, and it was aware of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities. Given the combustible materials stored in the building, and the resident’s reported concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to have worked with the resident and external agencies to address the hoarding issues, such as by considering the installation of fire prevention measures.
  7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman must consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, how this affected the resident. If a landlord’s response adversely affects a resident, we will consider whether it took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome. We recognise that this had been a challenging case for the landlord to manage. It needed to balance its obligations to ensure the residents’ fire safety with its obligations to support the vulnerable neighbour. The landlord also had to respect the confidentiality of the neighbour’s personal data. As such, this affected the extent of information it was able to provide to the resident.
  8. While it is clear the landlord has taken some action and this is a difficult situation, the landlord has failed to take the necessary steps to mitigate the risks brought on by hoarding. Overall, it did not follow its hoarding guidance, and the hoarding issues remained outstanding at the time of its final complaint response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to act with a sense of urgency and take appropriate and proportionate action to assess and mitigate the hoarding issues and the associated risk of fire. Consequently, we have found maladministration.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £850 as proportionate compensation to redress any distress and inconvenience caused to him by the failures found in this report. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where a failure by a landlord caused significant detriment to the resident. The issue is ongoing, and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this. We have therefore made an order below to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  10. Finally, there is no sign that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. We have made a further recommendation below to address this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 12 May 2024 until 18 June 2024. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’). This says landlords must acknowledge and log a stage 1 complaint within 5 days of receipt.
    2. Did not issue its response to the stage 1 complaint until 28 June 2024 which was 23 working days later than its 10 working day policy target timescale.
    3. Did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint of 18 November 2024 until 2 December 2024. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.11 of the Code. This says landlords must acknowledge and log a stage 2 complaint within 5 days of receipt.
    4. Sent another complaint acknowledgment to the resident on 6 December 2024.
    5. Notified the resident that it would not be able to respond to his stage 2 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy timescales, without explaining why. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.4 of the Code. This says any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the landlord should clearly explain the reason(s) to the resident.
    6. It did not agree a new response timescale with the resident, nor respond to him within a further 10 days. This was not in keeping with Paragraph 5.9 of the Code. This says where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in the Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.
    7. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 18 November 2024 until 27 January 2025 which was 27 working days later than its 20 working-day complaint policy target timescale.
    8. Incorrectly said he had raised his stage 1 complaint on 12 June 2024, instead of 12 May 2024 in its final complaint response.
  2. When a landlord has acknowledged failings, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress it offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation,) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord recognised its poor complaint handling, and it offered the resident £175 as compensation in keeping with its compensation guidance. This says it will consider offering compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience due to delayed or poor responses to a resident’s complaints. However, the award was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident because of the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay an added award of £75 compensation (totalling £250). This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. Additionally, we have asked it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety due to a hoarded property.
    2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its response to the resident’s fire safety and hoarding concerns and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident the £175 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an added £925 in compensation made up as follows:
      1. £850 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of fire safety and hoarding concerns may have caused to the resident.
      2. £75 for the time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
    4. Work with other agencies to inspect the neighbouring property and create an action plan to address the issues and failures found in this report. To achieve this, it must implement its hoarding guidance and fire safety guidance as is applicable to the property.
    5. Inspect the flats within the property to assess if it requires pest control. The landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of its inspection report, together with a timetable for these works within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
  2. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord reviews complaints it may have received from other residents that may have been affected by the issues found in this report. It should ensure it has taken reasonable steps to address these considering the findings of this report.