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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202416237)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416237

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with 2 young children. The resident and her children have medical vulnerabilities, which is known to the landlord.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, the resident reported damp and mould on 5 May 2023, 7 November 2023 and 23 January 2024. On each occasion it arranged appointments for mould washes and paint treatment. It completed a survey in February 2024 which identified water ingress from the roof and required a roofing specialist.
  3. On 24 March 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that there had been damp and mould issues for a number of years. The landlord had completed several treatments, but the damp and mould always returned, and it had not found the root cause. The damp and mould had damaged her personal belongings, and she wanted compensation for them. She also said the ongoing issue had caused a lot of stress and difficulties and was affecting her children’s health.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 28 March 2024. It apologised the resident was unhappy with the service and acknowledged the inconvenience and frustration she had experienced. It detailed the actions it had taken to resolve the damp and mould and that a further appointment was booked. It also acknowledged that the delays between appointments was not acceptable.
  5. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on 21 April 2024. She said the repair work was still ongoing, and the mould wash treatments and painting were ineffective. She said she was still waiting for contact from the surveyor and the landlord had not acknowledged her request for compensation for damaged belongings.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 18 July 2024. It said that a roofing contractor would attend on 18 July 2024, but it might not be straightforward, and another contractor might be required. It could arrange another mould wash while awaiting the contractor’s report. It apologised to the resident for the poor communication and time taken to resolve matters and offered £100 for the trouble and inconvenience caused.
  7. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, she wanted the landlord to permanently resolve the damp and mould issue. She also wanted compensation for the time and trouble, and compensation for the damage to her belongings. The resident told this Service on 28 March 2025 that the issue is still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In this case the resident says she has been reporting issues with damp and mould for several years. However, there are no records to show a formal complaint was raised with the landlord until March 2024. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould from March 2023. We cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. Any mention of past events in this report would be solely for contextual purposes.
  2. In addition, the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This would include any issues that arose following the landlord’s final response of 18 July 2024. Consequently, this investigation’s assessment is limited to events that occurred up to the final complaint response. The resident may wish to consider making a new complaint to the landlord if she is dissatisfied with its handling of any current matters.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing and that of her children. 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 or illness, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the circumstances experienced by the resident have caused significant distress and it is understandable that they are concerned about the ongoing impact of the issues that they have reported on their family. The purpose of the Ombudsman’s investigation is to determine whether the landlord’s actions in the circumstances were in line with its policies and procedures, as well as best practice.
  2. The landlord also has a responsibility to ensure a property remains fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that requires remedy.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that it should:
    1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review its current strategy and consider whether its approach will achieve this.
    2. ensure it can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
    3. ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
    4. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
  4. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and outside of the premises and building, which includes the roof, drains, gutters and external pipes.
  5. Under the landlord’s repair timescales, it responds to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 45 calendar days. It does not specify how it classifies damp and mould repairs. However, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem and the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action. This means the issue would generally be dealt with as a routine repair.
  6. The resident reported damp and mould on 5 May 2023. The landlord’s contractors attended the property on 26 May 2023 and completed mould washes, which was reasonable. They reported further works were required and the resident had requested they be done when the children were not home. The contractors returned on 26 June 2023 and completed further mould washes and applied mould treatment paint. It is unclear why there was a delay of 1 month between the two treatments.
  7. The resident reported the damp and mould had returned on 7 November 2023. The landlord arranged for a supervisor to complete an inspection of the property. The inspection took place on 24 November 2023, which was within a reasonable timeframe.
  8. The inspection report said there was minor mould growth in 2 bedrooms, with more significant mould in the bathroom. It also highlighted numerous repair jobs required to treat the mould. The contractors returned on 13 December 2023. They carried out several repair jobs as requested in the inspection report. However, they were unable to complete all work, as the resident needed to go out.
  9. The contractors booked follow–on jobs to complete the work. They returned on 11, 12 and 19 January 2024 and completed all outstanding works. It is not clear why there was a month delay before the follow-on jobs took place. This was not a reasonable time for the resident to wait, considering how long the issue had been ongoing.
  10. The resident then reported to the landlord on 23 January 2024 the damp and mould issue remained. It arranged a joint visit with a supervisor and a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould issues in the property. This was a reasonable action to take considering the repair works to date had been insufficient. However, due to the recurring nature of the damp and mould, it is disappointing the landlord did not instruct a surveyor to assess the property at an earlier date.
  11. The supervisor and surveyor inspected the property between 26 January and 25 February 2024. It is unclear from the landlord’s records exactly when the inspection took place. The evidence shows they provided a report on 25 February 2024. The report said they took a core sample from the ceiling where the most mould was, and the meter reading showed high levels of moisture. It also said there was no insulation between the ceiling and roof, and the concrete slab was very wet and seeping through to the ceiling. The landlord emailed its contractors on 25 February 2024 and asked for a roofing specialist to inspect the roof, as either the membrane covering the concrete slab was damaged, or the slab itself was allowing water to seep through. This was an appropriate action to take.
  12. The contractors attended again 4 times from March to April 2024 to complete further mould washes and painting. However, there was no evidence of any response from the contractors about inspecting the roof, or of the landlord chasing it up.
  13. The landlord had told the resident in its stage 1 response it was confident the mould wash and paint on the scheduled appointment of 3 April 2024 should eliminate the damp and mould concerns. The evidence shows the survey conducted in February 2024 reported a roofing specialist was required as it was likely that water ingress from the roof was causing the damp and mould. It is therefore unclear why it concluded in the stage 1 response a mould wash and paint should resolve the issue. This indicates the landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation of matters when looking into the complaint.
  14. The landlord raised a repair job on 3 July 2024 for a roofing specialist to attend the property. This was a significant delay which resulted in it not establishing the actual source of the problem until it had provided its stage 2 decision. The roofing specialist attended on 18 July 2024, the same day on which it issued its stage 2 decision. They confirmed there was water ingress to the flat. They suggested another contractor would need to attend to carry out a specialist test on the roof. The contractor also recorded the roof used to be handled by a managing agent, so they queried with the landlord who was responsible for roof repairs. The length of time taken for a roofing specialist to attend from the first report on 25 February 2024 to 18 July 2024 was inappropriate.
  15. In its final complaint response of 18 July 2024 the landlord confirmed a roofing specialist would attend that day, another contractor might be required, and it would arrange another mould wash in the meantime. It was reasonable for the landlord to detail what steps it was taking to address the damp and mould.
  16. Since the landlord issued its final complaint response on 18 July 2024, it confirmed to its contractors that the headlease on the building showed repairs to the roof were not its responsibility. It recorded roof repairs needed to be arranged via the managing agent in liaison with the freeholder. There is no evidence the landlord had told the resident this information prior to this date, which is unreasonable. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the roof. She therefore had an expectation the landlord would repair the roof and has no landlord/tenant relationship with the freeholder.
  17. There have been delays and issues with the landlord and the freeholder arranging access to inspect the roof. However, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, all issues that have occurred since the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2024 cannot be considered in this investigation.
  18. In summary, the landlord and its contractors did not raise and complete the correct jobs to facilitate a permanent and effective repair within appropriate timescales. It took over 4 months for a roofing specialist to attend the property. There was also a lack of communication with the resident about what work would be completed and when. The Ombudsman considers the overall time taken to arrange all necessary work to be unreasonable.
  19. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged its lack of communication and the delays in resolving matters. It also agreed there were unacceptable delays between repair appointments. As part of the resident’s complaint of 24 March 2024, she asked the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings. There is no evidence it addressed that issue in both its responses to the complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to advise her about how to make a claim to its liability insurers.
  20. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience caused. It is the Ombudsman’s view this is insufficient to address the failings identified in this report.
  21. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident £400 compensation. This considers all the failings mentioned above and includes the compensation the landlord already offered as detailed in its complaint response. This is within the bracket the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would award for failures of this nature resulting in maladministration that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the above requirements of the Code.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 24 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024, which was appropriate and in line with the Code and the landlord’s own policy.
  3. Following the resident’s escalation request of 21 April 2024 the landlord did not acknowledge that this would be dealt with until 21 June 2024. It then did not issue its stage 2 response until 18 July 2024. This was outside the timescale for dealing with the stage 2 complaint from the date of the escalation request in April 2024.
  4. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case, the landlord failed to address some of the complaint points the resident had raised. There were also delays in acknowledging the escalation request and issuing the stage 2 response for which it offered no redress. The Ombudsman therefore finds service failure for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  5. Therefore, we are ordering the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommendations of compensation in this bracket for such failings resulting in service failure that delayed getting matters resolved.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report.
    2. Share with the resident its intended actions to complete an inspection of the roof and then give regular updates until any work is completed.
    3. Pay the resident total compensation of £500, including the £100 previously offered, which is made up of:
      1. £400 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle repairs to the damp and mould.
      2. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord should review its procedures to ensure repairs that are the responsibility of a freeholder are correctly identified at the earliest opportunity to avoid delays.
  2. It is recommended the landlord should consider what actions it can take to liaise with the freeholder and their managing agent to prevent any further delays.