Sanctuary Housing Association (202431769)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431769

Sanctuary Housing Association

14 July 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:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom flat with her 3 children.
Around June 2023, the landlord did repairs to resolve damp and mould following a previous complaint from the resident.
On 20 December 2023, the resident reported the damp and mould had returned. She said her belongings were being damaged and she was worried about the impact on her children’s health.
The resident complained on 26 January 2024. She said she had been living with damp and mould for 7 years and it got worse each year. She wanted the landlord to help her move and pay compensation for stress and damage to her belongings.
She escalated her complaint on 19 March 2024. She said she was “appalled” the landlord was ignoring her and not dealing with the damp and mould.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 30 May 2024 which said it:
1. Was sorry it had not given a stage 1 response and for the delay in giving its stage 2 response.
2. Accepted there had been delays in it responding to her reports of damp and mould.
3. Had now ordered repairs and its contractor would arrange an appointment with her.
4. Offered £2,072 compensation for the delayed repairs, damage to her belongings, loss of enjoyment of her home and its complaint handling.
It later offered a further £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
The resident complained again on 18 November 2024. She said the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 4 December 2024. It apologised for the delay, said it had chased the repairs and offered £250 compensation.
On 3 February 2025, the resident complained the landlord had not replied to her previous complaint. The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 20 February 2025 in which it apologised and offered £100 compensation for not keeping her updated.
The resident replied on 20 February 2025 saying the response was an “insult”. She said the damp and mould was getting worse and the compensation offered was not enough.
The landlord gave a further stage 1 response on 14 March 2025. It said it had inspected with another contractor on 27 January 2025. It was waiting to hear from the contractor on when it could start work. It offered £100 for the further delay in addressing the damp and mould.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate on 17 March 2025. She said the landlord’s complaint process had not resolved the damp and mould issues. She wanted the landlord to move her.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s case after we accepted her complaint for investigation on 8 April 2025. On 5 June 2025, it gave a stage 2 response to the complaints she made from 18 November 2024 which said:
1. It accepted there had been damp and mould for “several” years despite previous surveys and repairs being identified. It was sorry for the delays while different contractors tried to identify the root causes and recommend solutions. It was also sorry for not keeping her updated as it should have.
2. It had visited again with a contractor on 7 May 2025 to scope the work needed. It had wanted to move her temporarily during the work but she had declined the option. It was now planning how it would do the work.
3. It had asked a specialist contractor to assess how ventilation could be improved.
4. It offered £1,482 compensation for the delay in doing the repairs, its “poor” communication and its complaint handling.
We spoke with the resident on 10 June 2025. She said she remained dissatisfied because she did not know when work would start, what would be done or how long it would take. She said she had “no faith” that the landlord would do the repairs or resolve the problem. She wants the landlord to move her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is not disputed there was damp and mould in the resident’s home for several years before she complained in January 2024. We have not investigated the handling of her reports before December 2023. This is because the evidence shows the resident was satisfied with the resolution given through the landlord’s complaint process around June 2023. The resolution was that the landlord would complete repairs and pay compensation. The evidence seen confirms it did both.
The scope of this investigation is the landlord’s handling of her reports from 20 December 2023. This is when she told the landlord the damp and mould had returned and raised a new complaint in the following month. Her complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process on 30 May 2024.
The resident made further complaints about the same issue from 18 November 2024 because the damp and mould was not resolved. Her later complaints completed the landlord’s process on 5 June 2025. We have included the period after 30 May 2024 in our investigation as we think it is the fairest approach to ensure resolution of the damp and mould which is not yet resolved.
The resident wants the landlord to move her to another property because she has no faith in its ability to resolve the damp and mould. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, we cannot order the landlord to move her. This is because we would not make an order that could result in other residents being disadvantaged. Without assessing the landlord’s transfer list, we would be unable to establish if there are others with greater priority than the resident in this case or if ordering a transfer would disadvantage another resident.

Damp and mould

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to resolve the damp and mould in the resident’s home. The resident’s complaint is that it has taken too long to do so.
On 20 December 2023, the resident reported damp and mould had returned despite repairs the landlord had done around June 2023. Under its Repair Policy and Procedure at the time the landlord should have either diagnosed the repairs needed and raised works orders or arranged for an inspection to be done within 10 working days.
The landlord raised an order for its contractor to inspect on 15 January 2024 which was 15 working days after the resident’s report of 20 December 2023. As such, the landlord’s response was not in line with the timescale of its Repairs Procedure to inspect within 10 working days.
The contractor inspected quickly on 17 January 2024 but we have not seen a copy of an inspection report. The resident called the landlord the same day saying the damp and mould was “really bad” and she wanted the landlord to move her and pay compensation for her damaged belongings.
The evidence suggests the landlord spoke to the contractor that had inspected and decided to ask the contractor that had done the repairs around June 2023 to also inspect. It was reasonable the landlord wanted to understand why the previous repairs had not resolved the damp and mould. However, it could have asked the previous contractor to inspect sooner after the resident’s report of 20 December 2023.
It appears the previous contractor had inspected by 23 January 2024 but the landlord was not happy with its assessment of the damp and mould. Again, we have not seen a copy of an inspection report or other evidence of the outcome of this inspection.
The contractor that had inspected on 17 January 2024 emailed the landlord on 23 January 2024. Its email said there was mould in every room but it was worse in the children’s bedroom. It said there was “condensation” in the hallway which had damaged the floorboards and skirtings. The email should have caused the landlord to consider the severity of the problem and the urgency of its response.
There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to address the damp and mould at this point. This was a significant failing given the landlord’s knowledge of the extent of the damp and mould and that there were children living in the flat. The resident had also complained on 26 January 2024 explaining her concerns about the impact on her children’s health and damage caused to her belongings.
A housing officer visited the resident on 12 February 2024 but there is no evidence to explain the outcome or what was discussed. The resident told us the housing officer had been unable to help with the repairs or her request for rehousing.
On 19 February 2024 the local council emailed the landlord passing on a complaint it had received from the resident about the condition of her home. On 20 February 2024 the council emailed again asking the landlord what action it intended to take. It chased the landlord for a response on 20 March 2024 and 16 April 2024. There is no evidence the landlord responded or took any steps to deal with the damp and mould.
On 25 April 2024, the landlord approved a quote for repairs to resolve the damp and mould from the contractor that had inspected on 17 January 2024. It is not clear when the landlord had received the quote. The evidence shows 10 emails were exchanged internally and with the contractor on 25 April 2024 before the quote was approved. This could suggest the landlord’s process for approving quotes is not as efficient as it could be.
By this time, 4 months had passed since the resident reported the return of the damp and mould and 3 months had passed since the contractor’s inspection. This was far longer than the 28 working day timescale to complete repairs within the landlord’s Repair Procedure.
In May 2024, the landlord implemented a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy and Procedure. Its aim was to ensure it deals with damp and mould issues effectively. While the landlord was in the process of arranging repairs at the time, it would have been reasonable for it to have applied some of the actions from its new procedure. For example, the landlord could have considered offering a dehumidifier and assessing whether the damp and mould was a hazard it should address urgently.
There is no evidence the landlord assessed if the damp and mould was a hazard at any point after May 2024. This is despite its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure saying it will assess for hazards where damp and mould reports are recurring.
The landlord sent the repair order to the contractor on 22 May 2024. It is not clear why it took the landlord a month to send the order after approving the quote on 25 April 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2024, the landlord said its contractor would arrange an appointment to do the repairs. The resident called the landlord on 5 June 2024 asking it to explain what work would be done. This suggests the landlord had not kept the resident adequately updated about its plans. There is no evidence it responded to her request for an explanation and this was a further failing.
The resident emailed the landlord on at 7:34 a.m. on 10 June 2024 saying the contractor was due to start work that day. She said she had not had sufficient time to move her belongings and did not know what was being done. She said she was feeling stressed and anxious.
At 9:30 a.m. on 10 June 2024, the contractor emailed the landlord saying the resident wanted her complaint resolving before the repairs were done. At 10:30 a.m., the resident called the landlord saying she was concerned the repairs would not resolve the damp and mould. She emailed later explaining the proposed work appeared similar to that previously done around June 2023 which had made the damp and mould worse in her view.
The evidence shows the landlord tried to speak with the resident on 13 June 2024 and exchanged emails with her to get a better understanding of her concerns. The landlord may have avoided the resident’s reluctance to have the work done if it had communicated with her more effectively leading up to the start of the work.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord emailed the resident saying it still needed to do repairs and asked the contractor that had done the previous repairs to inspect again. It is not clear why the landlord asked this contractor to inspect again given it had not been satisfied with its assessment of the damp and mould in January 2024.
Nor is it clear why it took the contractor 3 months to inspect on 7 October 2024. There is no evidence the landlord had intervened to chase the inspection. This suggests the landlord was not actively managing the disrepair issue despite it exchanging multiple internal emails on the matter.
The internal emails show that none of the teams involved took ownership for resolving the damp and mould. It appears the landlord felt the situation was a “[re]housing issue” because the resident wanted to move. While this may have been the case, it was inappropriate the landlord did not have due regard to its repairing obligations in the meantime. In our view, the landlord could have done more to try to progress the repairs from 13 June 2024.
On 8 October 2024, the landlord received a quote from the contractor that had inspected in January 2024 and 7 October 2024. The survey report confirms there was damp and mould in the bedrooms, lounge, kitchen and hall. The only room not affected was the bathroom. This was a similar assessment to that given by the other contractor on 23 January 2024. Again, there is no evidence the landlord considered the situation with the level of urgency it should have.
On 31 October 2024, it decided to ask a third contractor to inspect and give a quote to compare prices. We understand landlords need to consider the cost of repairs and manage their spending. However, they must ensure this does not cause unreasonable delay in them fulfilling their repair obligations.
By this time, the resident had been waiting since December 2023 for the landlord to address the damp and mould. The landlord knew young children were living in the flat, that the resident was concerned about the impact on their health and that her belongings were being damaged. It had also paid the resident £1,322 compensation for its handling of the repairs and £500 for her damaged belongings following its stage 2 response of 30 May 2024. In our view, its decision to ask for third quote for the work to compare prices was unreasonable and caused avoidable delay.
There was a further delay because the landlord did not ask the third contractor to inspect until 19 December 2024. It is not clear why it took 7 weeks to order the inspection after deciding to get a third quote on 31 October 2024. There was then further delay because the third contractor did not have the capacity to do the inspection.
On 27 January 2025, the landlord decided to ask a fourth contractor to inspect and quote for the work. It arranged to inspect jointly with the fourth contractor on 26 March 2025. We have not seen a copy of an inspection report but we have seen the contractor’s quote following the joint inspection. The evidence shows the landlord raised orders for the work on 25 April 2025. It is not clear why the fourth contractor did not complete the work.
In its second stage 2 response of 5 June 2025, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered a further £1,232 compensation for its failings in handling the damp and mould after 30 May 2024. The landlord would have avoided this further compensation offer if it had progressed the repairs after giving its previous stage 2 response.
On 6 June 2025, the landlord told us it had asked a specialist contractor to make recommendations on improving ventilation in the resident’s home. It had decided its direct labour team would do the other repairs needed but had not agreed a start date with the resident yet.
On 10 June 2025, the resident told us she remained dissatisfied because she still did not know exactly what work the landlord planned to do or when it would start. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication with her. She explained to us she had declined the option to move temporarily because the landlord could not tell her when she would need to move, how long for or where she would move to.
She told us that living with the damp and mould was stressful and she was constantly worried about her children especially when their beds were mouldy or they were ill. She explained it had been inconvenient to have to keep chasing the landlord and complaining to try to get it to act.
Overall, the resident has been affected by the return of the damp and mould for 18 months (from December 2023). The issue remains unresolved despite the landlord asking 4 different contractors to inspect and give quotes for the repairs needed.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its delays in addressing the damp and mould. While it apologised and offered compensation, there is no evidence it had investigated what had gone wrong. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to learn from its mistakes and repeated the same failings. It is concerning the landlord’s introduction of its Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy made no difference to the way it handled the damp and mould in this case after its introduction in May 2024.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have ordered the landlord to explain its repair plans to the resident and complete the required work.
The landlord paid the resident £1,822 compensation after its stage 2 response of 30 May 2024 for its failings including loss of enjoyment of her home and damage caused to her belongings. It offered a further £1,232 compensation in its stage 2 response of 5 June 2025 for its further failings. We think the total compensation offered through its complaint process is reasonable. As such we have not ordered additional compensation but we have ordered the landlord to pay the £1,232 offered on 5 June 2025 if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days for the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging an escalation request.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 26 January 2024 in line with the requirements of the Code.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord extended its stage 1 response timescale. The Code allows landlords to extend the timescale for responding to complaints in exceptional circumstances. This is to help landlords give a full response to complex complaints. It allows landlords to extend the stage 1 response timescale by no more than 10 working days. The landlord’s extension was in line with the Code because it was a complex complaint and it extended by 10 working days.
However, the landlord then failed to give a stage 1 response within the extended timescale. The resident chased it for a response on 26 February 2024. The landlord responded saying it would give a stage 1 response by 14 March 2024. This further extension was not in line with the Code.
The landlord’s failure to give a stage 1 response by 14 March 2024 caused inconvenience to the resident because she chased it multiple times for its response.
On 19 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord should have given a stage 1 response as a matter of urgency. The landlord’s decision to escalate the complaint without giving a stage 1 response was not in line with the Code. The Code says landlords must only escalate a complaint once it has completed stage 1.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 21 March 2024 and extended its response timescale by a further 20 working days on 19 April 2024. The Code allows landlords to extend a stage 2 response timescale by no more than 20 working days in exceptional circumstances.
In our view, the landlord’s extension on 19 April 2024 was not reasonable because, by this time, it was 60 working days since the resident had complained. During this period, the landlord had given no formal complaint responses and there is no evidence of any exceptional circumstances that would justify this.
The landlord then failed to give a stage 2 response within the revised timescale it gave. There is no evidence the landlord did anything to progress the complaint after extending the response timescale on 19 April 2024 until 16 May 2024 when it started chasing the relevant teams to progress the repairs.
This meant its stage 2 response of 30 May 2024 was given 48 working days after it acknowledged the escalation request on 21 March 2024. As such, the landlord did not give a stage 2 response in line with the requirements of the Code.
The resident did not read the landlord’s stage 2 response until 28 June 2024 because its email had gone into her junk folder. While this was not the landlord’s fault, the resident had chased it for its stage 2 response multiple times from 12 June 2024. The landlord sent her another copy on 28 June 2024.
After reading the stage 2 response, the resident asked the landlord to revise its compensation offer. The landlord spoke with her on 28 June 2024 and said it would contact her the following week. There is no evidence it did so and this caused the resident to chase the landlord again from 1 July 2024. It took until 18 July 2024 for the landlord to contact her and offer more compensation for its complaint handling failures.
The evidence shows the resident accepted the revised offer and the landlord had paid the compensation by 2 September 2024.
The resident complained again on 18 November 2024 because no repairs had been done to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with the Code on 21 November 2024.
This time it also gave its stage 1 response of 4 December 2024 within the 10 working day timescale required by the Code. However, the evidence suggests the resident not read the response because she complained the landlord had not responded on 3 February 2025.
The landlord logged a new complaint. In our view, this was reasonable because there was no reference to the damp and mould in the resident’s complaint of 3 February 2025. It was reasonable the landlord thought the complaint was about a different matter initially.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2025 saying mould was growing everywhere. She said the landlord had not resolved the issues since her first complaint and had not replied to her last complaint. The landlord logged another new complaint but it should have considered if her email was an escalation request following its stage 1 response of 4 December 2024.
The landlord gave a stage 1 response on 20 February 2025. It said it was in response to the resident’s complaint of 3 February 2025 which had been about it not responding to her complaint of 18 November 2024. The response referred to the repairs needed and agreed it had not kept her updated as it should have. It also said it had not logged her complaints correctly.
This suggests the landlord had realised her complaints of 18 November 2024 and 3 February 2025 were related. As such it is not clear why it gave another stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if it should escalate the complaint instead but there is no evidence it did so at this point.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 February 2025 offered a further £100 compensation. The resident replied the same day saying the response was an “insult”. It is not clear if she had read the earlier stage 1 response of 4 December 2024 by this point. Regardless, the landlord should have considered her email of 20 February 2025 as an escalation request because the resident was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response of 20 February 2025.
On 14 March 2025, the landlord gave another stage 1 response. It said it was in response to the complaint it had logged on 20 February 2025. By this time, the landlord should have realised the complaints it had logged from 18 November 2024 were related and should be escalated.
It appears our evidence request in April 2025, caused the landlord to review the case. It then realised its mistake in dealing with her complaints since 18 November 2024 separately. It was reasonable that it combined the 3 complaints and gave a stage 2 response.
However, the delay meant it gave its final response 73 working days after it should have escalated the complaint on 20 February 2025. As such, it did not respond to the escalation in line with the Code.
Through its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints, including its mistakes in dealing with her later complaints separately. It apologised for its mistakes and offered £600 compensation in total for its complaint handling failings.
In our view, the landlord’s actions resolved the complaint satisfactorily. As such, there was reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaints. We recommend the landlord considers the failings identified in this case to ensure it complies with the requirements of the Code in future.

Review of policies and practice

In this investigation, we found failings in the landlord’s record keeping and its handling of the damp and mould and complaints. We have found similar failings in other cases.
In case 202305635, we ordered the landlord to review its record keeping and repair procedures. We recommended it give complaints handling training to its staff. It complied with our orders in April 2024 and said it had improved its practices and given the training we recommended.
The failings found in this case after April 2024 suggest the landlord needs to make further improvements. It should consider our findings and decide what further changes it needs to make to avoid similar failings in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, it made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to explain the work it intends to do to resolve the damp and mould including the timescales it will work to. It must explain what support it can offer to help the resident prepare for the work and while the repairs are being done including the arrangements for protecting her belongings.
2. Pay the resident the £1,232 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response of 5 June 2025 if it has not already done so.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must send us evidence to show it has completed the repairs needed to resolve the damp and mould, including any work to improve ventilation as recommended by its specialist contractor.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £600 compensation for complaint handling it offered through its complaints processes if it has not already done so. The compensation offered is the reason for our finding of reasonable redress.
It should consider the failings we have identified in its record keeping, handling of the damp and mould and its complaint handling. It should decide if it needs to make further changes to its procedures and practices to avoid similar failings in future. Specifically, the landlord should consider how it can:
1. Gain assurance that its Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure is being followed by its staff and is achieving its policy aims.
2. Make sure its process for approving quotes and issuing orders avoids unreasonable delays in it progressing repairs.
3. Make sure inspections and repairs are progressed after it has raised orders with contractors.
4. Meet the timescales required by the Code when responding to complaints and escalating them.
5. Recognise when complaints are related to avoid sending multiple stage 1 responses about related issues.