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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202401611)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401611

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 January 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for repairs to the shower tray.
    2. Reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
    3. Reports of works required to the windows.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom house owned by the landlord. She lives with her daughter and young granddaughter. All 3 members of the household have disabilities and ongoing health concerns.
  2. The resident raised various multiple repairs issues with the landlord between April 2023 and her complaint on 12 March 2024, as set out in the complaint definition above. At the time of her complaint, all the issues remained outstanding, and this formed the basis of the complaint.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 April 2024. It confirmed that it had arranged works to repair the shower tray on 28 and 29 May 2024 and had requested a quote for replacement windows. It said that it had chased an appointment to assess her roof and the damp survey report. It apologised for delays and offered compensation of £300.
  4. The resident advised the landlord of her dissatisfaction with its response on 25 April 2024 as she felt it had not addressed all her concerns or compensated for damaged items. She said that it should have received correspondence from the Local Authority’s Housing Standards department. She formally requested escalation of the complaint on 3 and 8 May 2024.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 21 June 2024. It said it would complete works to the shower tray on 5 and 6 August 2024 but would try and bring this appointment forward. It acknowledged the Housing Standards report but stated that it would wait for the outcome of the damp survey before completing any works to the roof or loft. It had approved a quote for new windows and listed the works it would be raising following a property survey. It said that it would not offer compensation for damaged items but that it would review this decision after the survey.
  6. The landlord provided a revised stage 2 response on 12 August 2024. It confirmed that it had completed works to the shower tray but apologised for the length of time it had taken to do so. It stated that it was considering a quote for a full window replacement. It would be organising a new damp survey and check the roof for leaks. It made a revised compensation offer of £3,520, broken down as follows:
    1. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays in obtaining the damp report and roof inspection.
    2. £2,175 as a goodwill gesture for damaged carpet and flooring.
    3. £495 for the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home due to shower repairs from August 2023 to June 2024.
    4. £250 for complaint handling at stage 1 and stage 2.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the fact that works remained outstanding and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman about damp and mould impacting her granddaughter’s asthma and daughter’s compromised immune system. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Shower repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy and handbook for residents set out 3 distinct categories of repairs. It describes emergency repairs as those that pose a serious threat to the health and safety of a resident, or to the structure and fabric of their home. It will respond to these within 24 hours of receiving the repair request, but it may need a second appointment to complete works.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy and handbook for residents describe appointed repairs as any non-emergency repair that requires access to the property. It aims to complete these within 45 days, with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with a vulnerability. It aims to complete all major repairs within 90 days. Its third category is planned repairs. It completes these as a programme of works and these works may take longer to complete.
  3. On 31 August 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the shower. It found that the shower cubicle was in a poor condition, with water leaking onto the floor. This was causing visible staining on the kitchen ceiling. It stated that the shower cubicle was not fit for purpose and that the required parts were no longer available. It advised that it should complete repairs as soon as possible to prevent more damage. It booked works for 13 September 2023. This was a good initial response and was within its repairs policy timescales.
  4. When the landlord attended on 13 September 2023 it found that it needed to order materials which would take approximately 10 working days to arrive. As such, it rebooked works for 24 and 25 October 2023. While this further delay would have been undoubtedly frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for it allow enough time for materials to arrive when rebooking the appointment.
  5. On 24 October 2023, the landlord rebooked the works due to an emergency. The new date was 20 and 21 February 2024. The resident was unhappy with this. She told it that the shower was the only form of bathing in the house and as the water leaking from it was entering the kitchen, her family were trying not to use it. It offered no explanation to her about why the new date for works was 4 months away nor did it offer any alternative solution in the meantime. However, it asked internally whether it could rebook the works any sooner.
  6. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it contacted the resident about these works any further until it left her a voicemail on 16 February 2024. On this date, it rescheduled the works due on 20 and 21 February 2024 because it had no available operatives. It provided her with a new date of 28 and 29 May 2024. This was a further 3–month wait, and it did not appear to be considering the vulnerabilities within the household.
  7. The resident applied to the local authority for a disabled facilities grant to install a level access shower in February 2024, which the landlord approved. In her complaint on 12 March 2024, she advised that she applied for this because of its repeated rescheduling of works as the shower was unsafe for her and her family.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 25 April 2024. It advised that it had booked works to replace the shower tray for 28 and 29 May 2024. It apologised for its failure in service, but this was in relation to ongoing damp and mould works. Its response to this complaint point was poor and it failed to acknowledge or explain the delay in completing works.
  9. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 3 and 8 May 2024 after advising it on 25 April 2024 that she felt it had not adequately addressed all her concerns. It acknowledged this on 8 May 2024.
  10. On 28 May 2024, the landlord rescheduled works to the shower again as the materials it needed were not available. The new date was 5 and 6 August 2024. The resident advised it that she was unhappy with this, and its complaints team worked to chase the works internally. Following this, it rescheduled the works a further 2 times for dates in August 2024. It called her again on the 12 June 2024 and booked a new appointment for 27 and 28 June 2024.
  11. The landlord sent the resident its first stage 2 complaint response on 21 June 2024. It stated that it was sorry the required shower work was still outstanding and said that it rescheduled works for 5 and 6 August 2024. This was incorrect as it had already booked an appointment for June 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience it had caused her but offered no alternative form of redress. Its response in relation to this matter was poor and provided incorrect information.
  12. The landlord completed works to the shower as planned on 27 and 28 June 2024. This was over 9 months since it raised them. It far exceeded its own policy timescale for appointed repairs of 45 days and despite being aware of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household, it did not make any attempt to complete works in line with its 28-day response for vulnerable customers.
  13. In the landlord’s revised stage 2 complaint response of 12 August 2024, it apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the shower repairs and stated that the time it had taken was longer than it would consider “ideal”. It offered compensation of totalling £495 for the loss of enjoyment of her home due to shower repairs between August 2023 and 26 June 2024.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may pay compensation by way of room loss allowance if it has not completed repairs within its published timescales and the failure is due to its action or inaction. For a bathroom, this is a maximum of 30% of the rent amount for the relevant period. The payment of £495 offered in this case is an approximate 10% rent repayment for the 41 weeks it took to complete works. This figure does not account for its ability to offer payments for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  15. Also in the landlord’s compensation policy, it states that examples of “high impact” on the customer due to a service failure are excessive delays to works being carried out or issues being resolve and failures to make reasonable adjustments to meet their needs. It may make payments of up to £400 for this and it would have been good practice for the landlord to consider this as an additional option for redress as the evidence demonstrates it was aware of the impact on the resident and her household from as early as October 2023.
  16. In conclusion, the landlord did not complete repairs within its policy timescales. It failed to keep the resident appropriately updated and did not consider the additional needs within her household. While its revised stage 2 complaint response began to provide redress for the delays, and she accepted its compensation offer, it did not explain why it had taken so long to complete repairs or offer appropriate compensation for this. As such, this Service will make a further order for financial redress in the orders and recommendations section of this report.

Leaks, damp, and mould

  1. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 3 March 2024. She stated that large areas of the back bedroom walls were wet, with water trickling down them. She also reported that the ceiling was damp. It raised emergency works to inspect and did so the next day, 4 March 2024. This was a prompt first response within policy timescales.
  2. During the inspection, the landlord found that the bedroom walls and ceiling were very damp and that there were no leaks from the loft. It described condensation on the roofing felt and an old boiler flue which needed removal and repair. It stated that it required it roofing team to inspect the roof and raised an order for this on 4 March 2023.
  3. The landlord attended the resident’s property to repair a valve on the lounge radiator on 14 and 20 February 2024. The operative noted that the carpet was wet and may require a surveyor inspection. On 6 March 2024, it booked this for 12 March 2024. Its initial response to her concerns was timely and appropriate.
  4. In the resident’s complaint on 12 March 2024, she raised the water ingress in the living room and stated that this had now spread to the dining room, ruining the new flooring in both rooms. She stated that the landlord’s surveyor attended that day and said that there was no damp proofing insulation. She was waiting for the roofing team to contact her about its inspection. She described damage to furniture and clothing from mould due to the leak in the back bedroom and requested compensation for this.
  5. The resident called the landlord to chase the roof inspection on 21 March 2024. On the same day she sent it correspondence to notify it of repair issues and health hazards. These included the issues with the roof, damp and mould. She advised that if it did not complete the necessary repairs within 14 days, she would contact the local authority and seek legal advice.
  6. On 24 April 2024, the local authority wrote to the landlord following their inspection of the property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This is a risk-based evaluation tool used to identify hazards that pose a risk to the health and safety of tenants. The inspections evaluate risks against 29 predefined hazard profiles, which include excess cold and damp and mould. These hazards are placed in either category 1, which require immediate action, or category 2, which only need to be addressed in certain situations.
  7. In the local authority’s letter, they made clear that this was not a formal notice but was to advise the landlord about the inspection and the identified hazards. Their findings supported those already made by the landlord’s surveyor in relation to loft insulation, but they did state that the external back bedroom wall was dry when tested for damp. They made recommendations for actions it could take in relation to category 2 hazards identified for excess cold and damp and mould, such as assessing the loft insulation and installing extractor fans.
  8. The next day, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It did not mention the letter from the local authority, but it is unclear whether its complaints handler would have seen this by the time it provided the response. It advised that it was waiting for its roof team to book an inspection appointment, which it had escalated with management. It then stated that it had also chased its surveyor for a copy of the report from its inspection on 12 March 2024.
  9. It its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the unreasonable delay in treating damp and mould and offered £300 compensation. It also asked the resident a series of questions about her claim for compensation for damaged items so that it could review her request. While the offers of redress were reasonable for the time it had taken so far, it could not offer any information on how it would proceed with repairs, and this demonstrated a lack of internal communication and planning.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 3 May 2024, stating that it would not be offering any compensation for her personal belongings as its surveyor did not see any evidence that condensation had damaged her flooring. It stated that tenants have a responsibility to protect and move any of their belongings to prevent damage. She was unhappy with this response and requested that it escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  11. The landlord has provided evidence showing that throughout May and early June 2024, its complaints team regularly chased its surveyor for its inspection report from 12 March 2024 and an update on works without success. Its response to her complaint and its ability to raise works orders was dependent on this information and the delay of over 6 months in providing the inspection report highlighted its poor internal communication.
  12. As part of its first stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it raised no follow-on works after its inspection of 12 March 2024. It apologised for this and stated that it requested a further damp inspection to find the source of the water ingress in the living room. It apologised for not raising this sooner.
  13. Also in its response, the landlord noted that while the water dripping from the back bedroom ceiling may have been the result of condensation in the loft as per the local authority’s letter, it would await the outcome of its own damp survey. It listed works that it would raise following the local authority’s recommendations and this included the installation of extractor fans and new loft insulation. It stated that it would reconsider the resident’s request for compensation pending the outcome of its damp survey.
  14. This response was a positive step forward with the landlord raising works to improve conditions within the resident’s home. It also demonstrated that it was open to offering compensation if evidence showed that it was appropriate.
  15. The landlord raised an order for a damp inspection on 21 June 2024 and passed this to its contractor on 24 June 2024. However, on 16 July 2024, it cancelled the order as there had been an issue with the contractor receiving the request and they said that they would not be available for this until the end of August 2024. It raised a new order form and passed it to a different contractor on the same day. While frustrating, this was unavoidable for the landlord, and it acted promptly to rebook the inspection.
  16. While inspecting the roof on 5 July 2024, the landlord identified that it needed to complete works to improve ventilation in the roof space as the upstairs rooms were suffering from mould. There is no evidence that it did this prior to providing its revised stage 2 response on 12 August 2024.
  17. In its revised stage 2 response of 12 August 2024, the landlord explained that it was arranging a further damp survey to confirm the source of water ingress downstairs. It apologised that the roof inspection was outstanding. However, this had already happened, and this again demonstrated a lack of effective internal communication. It declined to compensate for damaged belongings but offered compensation totalling £3,520. £2,775 of this related directly to damp and mould, as follows:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays in obtaining the damp report and roof inspection.
    2. £2,175 goodwill gesture for damaged carpets and flooring.
  18. The landlord’s revised offer of compensation was fair and demonstrated a willingness to support the resident in replacing her damaged flooring. However, it was unable to provide an estimated timeframe for surveys and repairs due to poor internal information sharing.
  19. The landlord has started roofing works and has scheduled these for completion on 4 February 2025 following difficulty with installing scaffolding. This is due to a cattery installed by the resident. In a conversation with this Service on 14 January 2025, she stated that there is still an issue with water ingress in the living room. It is unclear whether it has raised, or intends to raise, any further works to investigate or repair this.
  20. In conclusion, while issues with damp and mould can be difficult for a landlord to diagnose, poor internal communication in this case led to delays in arranging surveys and works. The resident felt that she required the support of the local authority for the landlord to act. She reports that damp and mould issues remain, although the completion of roofing works in February 2025 may help to control this. Its offer of compensation in its revised stage 2 offer was fair and the resident accepted this, but she may wish to make a further complaint to the landlord about the time it has taken to complete works since this.
  21. This Service would not ordinarily consider a higher compensation offer after a landlord’s initial stage 2 response as reasonable redress. However, we have in these circumstances as the resident had not yet escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Window repairs

  1. The resident first reported issues with the upstairs windows to the landlord on 11 April 2023. These included windows not closing properly, mould inside of the window and draughts entering through the closed windows. It booked works for 24 May 2023 and noted that it had completed them on this date, although there were no notes of the works it completed. This was within its 45-day response period as set out in its policy and was reasonable at the time.
  2. The evidence provided in this case shows that there were no further reports of issues with the windows until the resident’s complaint of 12 March 2024, approximately a year later. As previously mentioned, this complaint directly followed the landlord’s inspection of the property. She stated that all windows needed replacing and asked it to complete works and consider compensation for the increased cost of warming the house. On 14 March 2024, it requested a quote from its contractor for replacing all windows and doors at the property. This was a positive action, and it showed willingness to address the issues.
  3. The landlord received the requested quote from its contractors on 19 March 2024. There is no evidence that it approved this quote or took any action following receipt. This was not appropriate as its surveyor had identified a need for the replacement of the windows and doors as they were beyond economical repair, which it confirmed in an internal email on 30 October 2024 and it had an opportunity to start the process of doing so once it received the quote.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 25 April 2024, it stated that it had passed the window replacement to its repairs team to arrange a quote. The complaints handler was seemingly unaware that its surveyor had already received the quote which further demonstrates that it had not followed this up. On the same day, the complaints handler chased its inspections team and surveyor for the works. The positive action from the complaints team highlighted the inaction with repairs.
  5. The landlord’s complaints team continued to chase an update from the surveyor until it received an update on 19 June 2024, confirming that they had received a quote from its contractor. However, they did not provide any information about how they would be proceeding. Thus, the landlord did not have any information to provide the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 21 June 2024, other than that it had submitted the quote for approval. While this was an update, she had already been waiting for 3 months for information and it had received the quote within a week of its inspection in March 2024.
  6. When the landlord provided the resident with its revised stage 2 response on 12 August 2024, it provided no further update about the windows other than that it was considering a quote for a full window replacement. This was almost 2 months since its original response and 5 months since it first inspected the property. While repairs of this nature can take longer than the simpler day-to-day repairs, it had been unable to provide her with any meaningful information due to its delay in actioning the quote following its receipt on 19 March 2024.
  7. Evidence provided by the landlord demonstrates that it was still chasing an update on behalf of the resident in October 2024. This was when its surveyor advised that they would not be replacing all the windows despite finding that the windows and doors were beyond economical repair on 12 March 2024. They planned instead to only replace some glazing, rather than the entire units. The resident refused this as she was expecting a full replacement, and it was due to survey again in November 2024 for this. She confirmed to this Service on 14 January 2025 that, to date, the landlord has not arranged works to replace the windows.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s response to this issue was poor. It again highlights poor internal communication with a failure to share relevant information or take any timely action when receiving a quote. Its surveyor identified that the windows and doors in the property should be replaced, but it then failed to follow through with this and did not keep the resident appropriately updated. It offered no redress to her for delays, and she is still waiting for it to tell her what works it intends to complete.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and to respond within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of escalation. It states that if an investigation is more complex or needs a longer investigation, it may extend the response timeframe by 10 working days and will contact the resident to discuss this and the reasons for doing so.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments of up to £150 for delays in giving a complaint response leading to increased contact from the customer.
  3. The resident complained on 12 March 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this on 15 March 2024, within policy timescales. It extended its response time twice after this, once on 28 March 2024 and again on 11 April 2024. On this occasion it explained that it needed further time to investigate due to the complex nature of her complaint. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the complaint handler was attempting to provide a thorough response.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 April 2024, 10 working days after its final extension. She expressed dissatisfaction with its response on the same day but did not formally request escalation of her complaint until 3 May 2024, which it did not acknowledge, and again on 8 May 2024 which it acknowledged on the same day. While it should have escalated her complaint upon receipt of her email on 3 May 2024, it did this promptly when she made the second request.
  5. On 3 June 2024, the landlord advised the resident that it was not able to provide her with its stage 2 complaint response as it had not yet assigned the complaint. It extended its response date to 28 June 2024 and did provide this on 21 June 2024. It apologised for the delays at both stages of the complaints process but did not offer any compensation for this. The apology was fair in the circumstances, but it would have been good practice for it to consider paying compensation in line with its policy.
  6. The landlord provided a revised stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 August 2024. In this response it reiterated its apology for complaint handling delays at stage 1 and stage 2 and offered compensation of £250 for this. This offer was fair and in line with its compensation policy. It was also appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the delays at both stages.
  7. In conclusion, while there were clear delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, these were due to the complaints team having to chase other internal departments for updates as mentioned throughout this report. Its final offer of compensation along with an apology was appropriate. The resident has confirmed that she has received this compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for repairs to the shower tray.
    2. Reports of works required to the windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £1,495 (inclusive of the £495 offered previously as part of its revised stage 2 response), comprising:
    1. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays in repairing the shower.
    2. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays and poor communication in relation to the window repairs.
    3. £495 offered previously in its revised stage 2 complaint response for loss of enjoyment of her home if it has not paid this already.
  2. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this decision.
  3. The landlord must write to the resident to outline its final decision on replacing the windows in the property within 6 weeks of this decision. This must include the reason for its decision and an estimated timeframe for completing works if it intends to do so.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord arrange with the resident a full and thorough survey of the property to identify and arrange any outstanding or additional required works.
  2. This Service recommends that a senior manager of the landlord reviews the communication issues in this case to identify any improvements it can make.