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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202406571)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406571

Sanctuary Housing Association

9 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 reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has multiple medical conditions including poor mobility and suffers from seizures. The landlord’s records note that she is registered disabled. The resident also told the landlord that her son has asthma.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 April 2024. She was unhappy with the outstanding repairs needed to resolve the damp and mould issues in her home. She said the landlord still needed to add further loft insulation and also asked it to replace the rotten cladding on the outside of the house. She said it had completed a mould wash on 4 occasions, but the issues returned. The resident informed the landlord that both she and her son were vulnerable and that the conditions within the property were affecting their health.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 April 2024. It listed the various repairs it had arranged and completed between February 2019 and March 2024. It apologised for the distress caused by the ongoing damp and mould issues. It said it would oversee the required works through to completion. It offered the resident £250 compensation. This was for the time and trouble caused by the “significant” delays in completing works and the impact of this on her.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 May 2024. She was unhappy that the landlord had not explained how it would resolve the damp and mould within the home, and was simply carrying out mould washes. She said it had also not addressed why the damp and mould occurred, adding that the works previously suggested would not help resolve the issues. The resident also expressed concern that the landlord had not installed the loft insulation, and had not addressed her concerns with the cladding. She also felt that installing an extractor fan would not resolve the issues. In relation to the compensation offered, the resident said this did not reflect the impact caused to their physical and mental health.
  5. On 25 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the inconvenience, upset and distress caused by the ongoing damp and mould issues. It said it had completed 2 surveyor inspections in March 2023 and November 2023. It said it recognised that she felt the repairs would not resolve the issues and that due to this, it had placed the orders on hold. It acknowledged that it had failed to find the cause of the reoccurring damp issues. It said it would complete a specialist damp and moisture survey. This was because it was not satisfied it had considered all possible causes of the issues. It also apologised for its delayed complaint response and delay in responding to the resident’s requests for a call-back. It offered her £1,976 compensation. This included:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
    2. £1,176 for the loss of enjoyment of her home. It said this amount reflected the predicted loss of enjoyment caused until the end of November 2024. This is when it believed it would have completed the works by.
    3. £200 for its complaint handling including its poor communication.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the ongoing damp and mould issues at the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 19 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould impacted the household’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The resident said she had experienced issues related to the damp and mould since 2017. While the resident’s comments are noted, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore focus on events which occurred from January 2022. This is when the resident began making regular reports of the issues. The landlord also covered this timeframe within its complaint responses.
  3. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the ongoing damp and mould issues. This also included issues with the repairs recommended in a further surveyor’s inspection in October 2024. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure explains how it responds to repair requests. At the time of the complaint, it would attend and make safe any emergency repairs within 24 hours. It would complete appointed repairs within 28 calendar days. The landlord introduced a damp, mould and condensation procedure in May 2024. It explained that after an initial report of damp and mould, it will arrange a mould wash. If the issues return, it will arrange a further mould wash and a surveyor’s inspection. Throughout this time, it will keep residents informed until it resolves the damp and mould issues.
  2. The resident reported black mould within her son’s bedroom on 15 January 2022. The landlord arranged an appointment for 3 February 2022 to inspect this. It therefore acted in line with its repairs and maintenance procedure by arranging this within 28 days. The resident later cancelled the appointment on 1 February 2022 as her son was ill. Despite this, the landlord still attended on the appointment date. The resident explained her son was ill and the appointment did not go ahead. It is unclear why the landlord still attended despite being aware of the cancellation. By doing so, it would have understandably caused the resident inconvenience.
  3. Following this, we would expect the landlord to reschedule the appointment with the resident. The landlord was aware of the reported damp, and it had a duty to investigate and attempt to resolve it. It would have been good practice for it to follow this up. However, there is no evidence to show that it did so. As such, the resident reported the damp and mould issues again on 6 December 2022. The landlord’s inaction of following up the cancelled appointment was therefore a failing. If it had acted sooner, it could have resolved the issues for the resident sooner.
  4. The landlord inspected the property on 6 January 2023. This timeframe was reasonable given the festive holidays during this time. The inspection found damp and mould within one of the bedrooms, and flagged that the roof and guttering above the bedroom window needed investigation.
  5. It is evident that following this inspection, the landlord took steps to try to find the cause of the damp and mould issues. It is understandable that finding the cause of damp and mould can be complicated and may require a process of elimination to resolve it. However, as acknowledged in the landlord’s final complaint response, it failed to find the cause of the recurring damp issues.
  6. Between January 2023 and March 2024, the landlord conducted further inspections and completed various repairs to try to resolve the issues. During this time, the resident also experienced damp and mould within the bathroom and hallway too. The landlord took some steps in a reasonable timeframe in line with the timescales set out in its policy. This includes checking the guttering, the fascia and completing mould washes. However, it also unreasonably delayed in taking steps. For example, it:
    1. Identified works needed to install loft insulation on 27 January 2023. It partially installed this on 1 March 2023, and it attempted to lay the remaining insulation on 15 August 2023. This was a delay of over 4 months, and the evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable.
    2. Took a further month, on 19 September 2023, for its contractors to quote the works needed to remove the loft boards so it could lay the remaining insulation.
    3. Needed to check whether it would relay the loft boarding after installing the loft insulation as the resident asked for information before allowing access for this repair. Its contractors asked the landlord for this information on 1 November 2023. There is no evidence that it answered this query or whether it later installed the remaining insulation or not.
    4. Took over 3 months to inspect the windows and treat the external cladding. It identified the required works on 12 June 2023, and it completed this on 28 September 2023.
    5. Took nearly 4 months to receive and approve the quoted works from its contractors following an inspection on 22 November 2023. We will refer to the repairs raised following this inspection later in the report.
  7. During this time, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord to find the cause of the damp and mould issues. She asked it not to complete mould washes until it knew what caused the issues, so it could complete a lasting repair. The landlord continued to offer mould washes, some of which the resident refused in March and April 2023. While we acknowledge the reasons why the resident declined the mould washes, it was reasonable for the landlord to continue to offer these. By doing so, it could ensure that the conditions within the property remained safe.
  8. There is no evidence to show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding the issues and how it would resolve them. The landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to the resident during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. Instead, it is evident that between February 2023 and April 2024 the resident asked for updates on 8 occasions. By not communicating updates to her, it missed opportunities to offer her reassurance that it took her concerns seriously. This understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
  9. Similarly, after the landlord introduced its damp, mould and condensation procedure in May 2024, it should have kept the resident informed of the repairs progress. This was part of the commitments set out in its procedure. However, there is no evidence provided to suggest that it did so between May 2024 and its final complaint response in September 2024. We therefore cannot establish that it acted in line with its procedure.
  10. The inspection on 22 November 2023 identified works needed to resolve the damp and mould issues. This included mould washes to the bedroom and bathroom. It also included moving the tumble dryer to a more ventilated area and installing a ventilation system on the landing into the loft space. The resident was concerned with the proposed repairs.
  11. On 4 April 2024, the resident asked whether the ventilation system would connect to the electrics. The landlord’s records showed that on the same day it discussed internally that the running cost would be the same cost as using a light. However, it only updated the resident of this after a further 2 weeks, on 18 April 2024. It is unclear why it delayed in offering her this reassurance. This would have understandably added further delays and distress to her during this time.
  12. Similarly, the resident had concerns about moving her tumble dryer from the upstairs landing to a more ventilated area. She felt this would not resolve the damp and mould issues within the home as the issues did not occur within the area of the tumble dryer. She explained this concern to the landlord in her complaint escalation on 20 May 2024. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it responded to her concerns until its final response in September 2024. While it then provided an explanation of why it needed to move, the delay in explaining this was not reasonable. This understandably added to the overall delay in completing the required repairs.
  13. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have explained the proposed repairs much sooner, including why it was needed. It should have explained the benefits of the proposed repairs much sooner. By doing so, it would have allowed the resident the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed repairs and for the landlord to offer reassurance to her. If it had done this in a timely manner, it may have reduced the delays in resolving the damp and mould issues at the property.
  14. The landlord’s inspection in November 2023 did not refer to the outstanding loft insulation needed. It is unclear whether the landlord has completed the remaining insulation or not. However, it has told us that it has upcoming repairs to the loft insulation which may relate to this. The lack of clarity over this repair and why it did not complete this in a timely manner is a record keeping failure.
  15. The resident raised concerns of whether the cavity wall insulation needed repairing to help resolve the damp and mould issues. She asked the landlord about this on 13 March 2023 and 19 April 2023. Landlords are entitled to decide which investigations and repairs to complete based on the recommendations of its professional staff and contractors. However, if it decides that the investigations requested by the resident were not required, we expect it to provide her with its reasons for such a decision. There is no evidence to show that it responded to her request or explained its reasonings for not investigating this. This is a failing.
  16. It is concerning that throughout this time, the resident advised the landlord that both her and her son’s health was suffering. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the damp and mould. However, being notified of the situation should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with her.
  17. By doing so, the landlord could have assessed whether the issues posed any health and safety risks to the household. This is especially relevant given the resident’s records noted her medical conditions and that she is registered disabled. Additionally, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure states it will be flexible towards the needs of its vulnerable service users. Therefore, its failure to not consider the reported impact to their health was not appropriate.
  18. In summary, we reasonably expect that a thorough inspection of damp and mould should include an assessment of all potential causes. This includes leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. Doing so would involve checking the fabric of the building for faults. This should include the roof, damp proof course, brickwork, plumbing, external drains/gulleys, rainwater goods as well as the airflow and extraction within the building.
  19. In the landlord’s final response, it said it was not satisfied of whether it had considered all the possible causes of the damp and mould. Given the resident had experienced the damp and mould issues historically since 2017, and more recently since 2022, this was not appropriate. However, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge this and to arrange a full damp and mould inspection in October 2024.
  20. The landlord offered the resident a total of £2,026 compensation. This included £850 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to her by its delayed repairs. This amount was above the figures of the landlord’s maximum award as set out in its compensation guidance. It also included £1,176 for the loss of enjoyment of her home, which it predicted it would resolve by the end of November 2024. It’s offer of compensation was a significant amount.
  21. However, the amount offered by the landlord did not fully consider the full impact of its failings. It failed to acknowledge the delays in approving the quotes from its contractors and its lack of communication with the resident. It also failed to clarify its position regarding the loft insulation and whether this remained outstanding or not.
  22. Considering the above, the amount offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord should pay the resident a further £450 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to her by these additional factors. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance.
  23. The landlord has told us that it has upcoming repairs booked following an inspection completed in October 2024. This includes works to the loft insulation, soffit vents, the back door, and external ground works. It is unclear whether the landlord has completed a more recent damp and mould inspection since October 2024. Given this was over 7 months ago, the landlord should complete a further inspection to assess whether these works are appropriate or whether any additional works are needed too.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) explains how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1, it must respond within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 4 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days on 10 April 2024. It then provided its response within a further 8 working days. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by responding in line with the timescales set out in the Code and its policy.
  3. The landlord’s initial complaint response was confusing and difficult to follow. It included repairs information which appeared to be copied and pasted from its repair records. For example, it said “13 March 2023 an inspection was raised DMS have been out partially done loft insulation as too much stuff in loft tenant unable to move it inspection was booked for 28 March 2023 and report was sent for further works on 4 April 2023.” This was confusing. The landlord should ensure that it proofreads its responses before sending to ensure that it contains high quality information.
  4. Similarly, within the initial response, the landlord explained that it needed to complete further works to resolve the damp and mould issues. However, it did not explain what it would do or when it would complete any repairs. It instead repeated its assurances that its works coordination team would take ownership of the repairs to ensure it completed this. The lack of clarity about the landlord’s next steps was not appropriate. Therefore, in line with our dispute resolution principles, we cannot establish how the landlord intended to put things right for the resident. This was a failing.
  5. On 1 May 2024, the resident told the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she would provide her escalation reasons in a letter, which she did on 20 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and explained it would provide its response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy explained that it could extend the timeframe to respond to the complaint by a further 20 working days if needed. On 18 June 2024, it updated the resident that it needed an extension, and it would respond by 15 July 2024. In line with the Code, if a landlord extends its response time, it must provide the resident with our contact details. However, there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord therefore failed to act in line with the Code and understandably prevented the resident from seeking our advice or support. This is a complaint handling failure.
  7. Despite the landlord stating it would respond to the stage 2 complaint by 15 July 2024, it did not do so. This caused the resident time and trouble by asking for its response on 16 September 2024. The landlord later provided its final response on 25 September 2024. It therefore took 91 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was 71 working days beyond the timescale set out in its policy and the Code. This was not appropriate. During this time, the resident understandably experienced further distress and inconvenience by thinking it was not taking her concerns seriously.
  8. Part of the resident’s complaint included that the property condition impacted the household’s health and wellbeing. While part of its compensation offers included amounts towards the “inconvenience” caused to her, it did not consider the resident’s health concerns. In line with the landlord’s compensation guidance, it will investigate such claims through its insurers. It is a failing that it did not provide details of how to do this. This was a missed opportunity to allow an independent investigation into her concerns about their health.
  9. Within the landlord’s final response, it addressed the resident’s concerns with it closing the complaint before it had resolved the damp and mould issues. Its explanation of the Code requirements in responding when it can answer the complaint was appropriate. It would have been unreasonable if the landlord kept the complaint open until it resolved the substantive issues. By explaining this, it acted in line with the Code and managed the resident’s expectations. This was good practice.
  10. The landlord offered the resident compensation at both stages of the complaints process. In its final response, it offered her £1,176 for the loss of enjoyment of her home. The landlord’s compensation guidance allows for a room loss allowance for unresolved issues causing a room to be unusable. For bedrooms, this is a maximum compensation award of 20% of the overall rent, and a maximum of 30% for a bathroom. It is unclear how it calculated the figure offered to the resident. We recommend the landlord offers transparency in explaining how it calculates any compensation awards.
  11. The landlord acknowledged its delayed complaint response at stage 2. It therefore offered the resident £200 compensation for its poor complaint handling, including its poor communication. This was appropriate to reflect the time and trouble caused to her by its handling at stage 2 of the complaints process. However, it did not acknowledge its poor complaint response at stage 1, including its lack of clarity about the steps it would take to resolve the issues. It also did not reflect its complaint handling failure of not including our contact details when it extended the complaint timeframe, and its failure to signpost her to its insurers.
  12. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident a further £60 compensation for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the £2,226 compensation offered within its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident a further £510 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
      1. £450 for its response to reports of damp and mould.
      2. £60 for its complaint handling.
    4. Complete a further damp and mould survey of the property. A member of its senior management or a surveyor should complete this to find a full diagnosis of potential causes. It should provide us with a copy of the inspection report.
    5. Following the inspection, it should then write to the resident to:
      1. Confirm its findings.
      2. Provide an action plan for any required repairs, detailing appointment dates and the works required.
      3. Provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs.
      4. Confirm its intentions for a post-inspection of the works completed.
    6. Provide details of how to make a liability claim to its insurers for the resident’s impacted health. It should provide this in writing and offer reasonable support if requested.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord offers transparency in explaining how it calculates any compensation awards.
  2. We recommend the landlord issues its complaints handling staff with a reminder about proofreading complaint responses.