Sanctuary Housing Association — case 202313926

REPORT COMPLAINT 202313926 Sanctuary Housing Association 25 April 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: Handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front door.

Complaint handling. Background The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the lease beginning in February 2014. The property is a 1-bedroom third–floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. On 25 December 2021, the resident reported that he could not exit the property via the front door, as the door lock had “jammed”. The repair log shows that the landlord’s contractor attended the same day. The case notes said that the contractor advised “it was the step that was at fault, as to why the front door got stuck”.

On 23 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and raised a repair in relation to the “front door and door ledge” and some wooden panelling by the kitchen. The same day an internal email was sent to the home ownership team asking them to contact the resident to explain what his repair responsibilities were. On 27 May 2022, the landlord attended the property, with the case notes saying the works needed to be passed to an external contractor. They included: Replace with a new hardwood cill.

Replace the metal capping to front door. Renew the timber framework and panelling next to the front door as this was rotten and beyond repair. On 28 February 2023, the resident chased the repair for the front door. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 3 March 2023 said that it had checked the lease agreement, and the flat entrance door was the leaseholder’s responsibility. Therefore, it recommended declining the work. On 31 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the door repair.

The case note said that it advised the resident it was his responsibility to repair the door, but the resident disagreed. The resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2023. He said that: The external wooden panel under the kitchen window needed replacing “every few years” because it became rotten and started to sag. He had reported the issue many times and the landlord would “always” send a contractor to replace it. Last year a contractor visited and said the whole frame was completely rotten and needed replacing.

They also inspected the front door frame and step underneath and said both needed to be replaced as neither could be repaired. So much of the step had rotted away that there was a half-inch gap between the bottom of the front door and the step. Every time it rained heavily, water would pour into the property and make a puddle immediately behind the front door. He had to take time off work to “make sure the water was not allowed to puddle and ruin the floor”. The situation was “taking a toll” on his wellbeing and mental health and he was feeling “very depressed”.

The resident chased a response to his complaint on 5 May 2023, saying he was frustrated, and the situation was affecting his mental health. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 July 2023. It said that: It had consulted with the relevant departments, which confirmed that the door and door frame were the responsibility of the resident as outlined in schedule 4 of the lease. It had also reviewed its complaint handling, and it apologised for the delay in responding. It offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling delay.

The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2023. He said that he was unhappy with the length of time it had taken to receive a response and was unhappy that no one had visited to inspect the door. On 25 August 2023, the resident chased a response to his stage 2 complaint and said that he was feeling “angry and ignored”. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. It outlined the lease responsibilities and provided copies of the relevant sections.

It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint and advise him of his responsibilities in relation to the door repair. It went on to say that, due to repeat concerns raised by the resident, it had arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 2 October 2023. It said that if the step was not the cause of the water ingress the resident would be responsible for the repair. It offered a total of £650 compensation. An inspection of the door was carried out from outside the property as the case notes said the resident was not home.

The contractor noted that the side panel and part of the timber adjacent to the door needed to be replaced. They also noted that that the threshold appeared “okay” and needed a “wipe down and to be newly treated”. On 9 April 2025, the landlord advised this Service that the works to the front door had been completed and there had been no further contact from the resident in relation to the matter. Assessment and findings Scope of the investigation Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact he felt the situation had on his health.

Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim. Handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front door Paragraph 3 of the lease agreement says that the leaseholder agrees to observe and perform the covenants contained in Schedule 7.

Schedule 7 says that the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the property “in good and substantial repair and condition”. This responsibility extends to the property’s fixtures and fittings and includes reinstating or replacing “all doors and door frames” when necessary. The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with the front door on 25 December 2021. The repair log shows that the landlord responded the same day with the case notes saying, “it was the step that was at fault, as to why the front door got stuck.

” This was responded to as an emergency within 24 hours, which was appropriate given the circumstances and safety risk to the resident. A further repair visit was carried out on 27 May 2022. The case notes show that the repair works were to be passed to an external contractor to complete. There is no evidence that this work was completed, or any contact made with the resident in relation to the works. He chased the repair works to the front door on 28 February 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord in relation to the repair and that the landlord failed to contact him with any meaningful information for 9 months.

Direct contact with the resident would have reduced any uncertainty he felt. It is good practice to keep residents updated, even when there is no new information or to advise the resident that it was not responsible for the repair. Internal correspondence of 2 March 2023 shows that the landlord liaised internally over who was responsible for the front door repair. It recommended declining the works, as it said this was the resident’s responsibility. The resident chased the matter again on 31 March 2023.

It was at this point he was advised that he was responsible for replacing the front door and frame. This was an unreasonable delay of over 10 months to inform the resident that the landlord would not be carrying out the works. The resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint on 18 April and 5 May 2023. He disputed that the repair was his responsibility and pointed out that the landlord had previously carried out repairs to some wooden panelling adjacent to the front door.

He also said that when it rained, water poured underneath the door into his property. He told the landlord the step and door frame were rotten to the point he could put his finger through them. He said he was frustrated, and the situation was affecting his mental health. The landlord’s case notes for 11 May 2023 said that the resident should be provided with its building insurance policy documents to make a claim for any damages to the inside of the property. This was a positive suggestion by the landlord in finding a solution.

However, there was no evidence to suggest that this information was provided to him. This was a missed opportunity to progress the complaint to a resolution. Internal correspondence of the same day said that there was some confusion as to the location of the repair, and thus, who was responsible. The case notes for 23 May 2023 said that the landlord would arrange for the caretaker to attend and take photos of the area to determine responsibility. There is no evidence that this visit took place.

If the landlord was unsure about the terms or legality of the lease, it should have consulted with its legal department. There was no evidence to suggest that it did so, which contributed to the delay in providing the resident with the correct information and thus a resolution, which was unfair to him. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 17 July 2023. It clarified that the door and door frame were the responsibility of the resident, as outlined in the lease under schedule 4.

Therefore it said it was not responsible for changing the door or door frame. While this advice was in line with the terms outlined in the lease, the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to properly explain this to the resident, causing him avoidable distress and inconvenience. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2023. He was unhappy at the amount of time it had taken the landlord to respond to his concerns relating to the front door and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s findings.

He said he felt “totally disrespected” and noted that the landlord had not sent anyone to inspect the property. The resident chased a response on 25 August 2023, saying he felt angry and ignored. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023, outlining the lease responsibilities and attaching a copy of relevant clause. It acknowledged that it had failed “several times” to advise the resident of his repair responsibility in relation to the door and frame. Furthermore, it said that due to repeat concerns raised by the resident, it had arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 2 October 2023.

It offered the resident £400 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused to him. These were positive steps taken by the landlord and demonstrated its attempt to resolve the complaint. However, while the landlord appropriately recognised the high level of impact and effort in its award for time, trouble and inconvenience, its award appeared to reflect a single failure (as opposed to the multiple failures identified by this investigation). On 2 October 2023 a visit was carried out to the property, with case notes identifying works needed to the timber side panel.

The landlord noted that the threshold appeared “okay”. A further visit carried out on 16 November 2023 concluded that it was not possible to replace the step without replacing the door and frame. The repair logs shows that there was a delay in carrying out the repairs to the side panel adjacent to the door, with this being completed on 8 January 2024. Had the landlord carried out an inspection sooner, as it had suggested it would on 23 May 2023, it could have satisfied itself sooner of its repair responsibility and that of the resident.

The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience in chasing the matter for over 19 months. In summary, the lease agreement says that the resident is responsible for keeping in good and substantial repair and condition of the property, including all doors and door frames. However, the evidence shows that there was confusion as to the specifics of the repair and who was responsible. The landlord was notified on 25 December 2021 by its contractor that the step was causing issue with the front door.

While the landlord took positive steps in completing all the repairs to the front door and frame (in March 2025), accepting its failing and offering £400 compensation, this is considered insufficient to put things right. This is because the landlord failed to: Show it had passed the works identified to an external contractor as per its case notes of 27 May 2022. Evidence it provided the resident with its building insurance details as suggested in its internal correspondence of 11 May 2023.

Provide evidence that its caretaker attended the property to confirm the area of the repair and thus who would be responsible as outlined in its internal correspondence of 23 May 2023. Inspect the property until 2 October 2023, despite ongoing issues reported by the resident and its confusion over the responsibility for the repair. Provide the resident with a resolution one way or another for over 2 years. Its contractor identified the step was causing issues to the door on 25 January 2021.

For the reasons above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front door. An increased award of £600 compensation has been ordered in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. This exceeds the landlord’s maximum award of £400 for a single service failure because there were multiple failures over an extended period of time. Complaint handling The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response to be issued, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.

It says that complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days. The resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint on 18 April 2023. He outlined the issues of his complaint and said that he was “officially complaining” about the landlord and the level of service he had received. There was no evidence provided that this was acknowledged. This was not appropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaint policy, which says complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days.

The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 May 2023, saying he was frustrated and was going to make a complaint. It has been evidenced that the landlord chased the stage 1 response internally between 30 May and 11 July 2023. However, no contact was made with the resident to advise that the response would be delayed. This was not appropriate. It is good practice for landlords to inform residents proactively of any delayed responses to mitigate any frustration or uncertainty.

The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 July 2023, which was 61 working days after the resident’s initial request to raise a complaint. This was significantly outside of its policy timescale and not appropriate. The landlord acknowledged it failed to provide a timely response, saying it was “truly sorry”, and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was proportionate to put things right. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 the same day. He also chased a response on 25 August 2023, nearly 6 weeks later.

He said that he had not received a response or acknowledgement for his complaint and was feeling “angry and ignored”. At this point, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 August 2023. While this was an appropriate step, the escalation should have been acknowledged following the resident’s initial request. In doing so, the landlord could have prevented the resident having to expend time and trouble chasing a response. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023.

This was 51 working days after the acknowledgement and significantly outside of its policy timescale, which was not appropriate. Nevertheless, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £250 for its complaint handling failure. This was proportionate to put things right and in line with the landlord’s maximum award as outlined in its compensation policy, for circumstances where there has been significant difficulty in raising a complaint and a delayed response.

In summary, the landlord failed to sufficiently follow its complaints procedure. It delayed in raising the resident’s complaint to stage 1 and was late sending its stage 2 response. This was frustrating for him and caused him distress and inconvenience when pursuing the matter. Overall, a total award of £250 compensation was offered to the resident for its complaint handling which is considered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration was it not for these steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failings and offering reasonable compensation.

Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the front door. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling. Orders and recommendations Orders Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident compensation of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him in relation to the landlord’s response to his reports of repairs to the front door.

This can be reduced by any amount already paid in relation to the door repair failures. Recommendations It is recommended that the landlord: Pays the resident the £250 compensation previously offered to him in relation to its complaint handling if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this payment is made. Arranges for relevant frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.

Reviews its processes for residents being informed about repairs in a timely and effective manner. This should include how it communicates and manages expectations in respect of and following repair reports.