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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202302127)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302127

Sanctuary Housing Association

12 November 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
    2. The resident’s request for repairs to a motorised skylight window.
    3. The resident’s report of a broken extractor fan.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has asthma.
  2. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 10 October 2022. She explained a surveyor attended in June 2022 to post-inspect damp works that its contractors did in early 2022. It agreed it needed to re-do the bathroom works yet failed to do so. She also complained about the delays remedying a broken extractor fan and a motorised skylight window that failed to open. She said this caused damp and mould in her bathroom.
  3. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 decision on the complaint. It issued its stage 2 response on 22 February 2023, confirming its contractors completed mould treatment in December 2022. It explained it had raised a work order for an extractor fan in May 2022 and it would chase this up. It stated it had received a quote to replace the skylight windows but had made further enquiries with its contractor regarding this. It expected to approve either replacement windows or a replacement remote window control within the next 3 months. It offered the resident £950 compensation.
  4. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final complaint response, so she referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the damp and mould in the bathroom had on the health of her and her family. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
  2. Within the resident’s communication with this Service, she said the extractor fan had not worked in the bathroom since she moved into the property in 2009. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this, completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or referred the matter to this Service at the time for support in engaging with the landlord. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be conducted, and for informed decisions to be made.
  3. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme (that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, we have used our discretion and focused on the period from May 2021 onward, when the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 22 February 2023. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
  4. This Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. We recognise that after the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident raised other concerns, such as the landlord’s handling of a shower repair and the installation of scaffolding to progress the window replacements. However, as these did not form part of the complaint raised in October 2022, the Ombudsman will not assess the landlord’s response to them within this report. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord directly and make a separate complaint.

Damp and mould

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  3. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  4. Records show the resident initially reported damp and mould to the landlord in May 2021. An operative attended in July 2021 and made a referral to a specialist contractor due to the height of the ceilings. Contractors treated the mould and repainted the bathroom in March 2022. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s delay in progressing the mould treatment to be unreasonable.
  5. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided comprehensive documentary evidence of its investigations into the reason for the damp and mould or that it considered the impact on the asthmatic resident. This Service expects a landlord to retain and provide accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook (whether visual or technical) such as photographs, written notes, or reports. Nonetheless, from the limited evidence available, the landlord considered the cause of the damp and mould to be the lack of ventilation in the bathroom resulting from the broken extractor fan and the skylight window that would not open. We have addressed these repairs separately within this report.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the mould treatment work. The landlord’s surveyor completed a post-inspection in June 2022 and identified that mould spots had reappeared on the wall, around the window reveals and in the sealant. It also observed marks from a paint roller on the walls. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds the landlord responded appropriately by taking the resident’s concerns seriously and post-inspecting the works.
  7. The landlord recalled the contractors in June 2022, who then asked for it to arrange a roof inspection before returning to the property because they were concerned that potential roof issues may be causing the damp and mould. The resident refused a roof inspection. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord in terms of exploring further potential causes of damp and mould. However, the landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays caused in this instance.
  8. The landlord’s records show it made an appointment for damp and mould follow up works for 24 October 2022. The resident cancelled this as a surveyor was due to attend the following day to review the condition of the bathroom. Copies of emails demonstrate the surveyor reported that the damp and mould had gotten worse, and the full bathroom required treatment to eradicate it.
  9. Contractors returned to the property and completed the mould treatment in December 2022. The landlord provided a copy of a “satisfaction slip” signed by the resident. The landlord has not adequately demonstrated why it took so long to complete the works or that it had sufficient oversight while the repair was outstanding.
  10. Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed reports of damp and mould within the bathroom. It acted with a lack of urgency and did not proactively manage the repairs. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of service and did not put things right in a timely manner, which caused repeat repair appointments and had a detrimental impact on the resident. Taken altogether, these were significant failings by the landlord.
  11. The landlord offered £400 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience for the treatment of mould between May 2021 and December 2022. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where there were failures that adversely impacted a resident. We recognise the landlord acknowledged its shortcomings and attempted to put things right with its compensation offer. However, considering how long it took to resolve the matter and the impact on the resident living with worsening damp and mould, the Ombudsman is minded that compensation of £600 is more appropriate in the circumstances.

Skylight window

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure states it aims to complete appointed (non-emergency) repairs within 28 days. Despite best efforts to complete all repairs on time, this is not always possible. Some repairs require the landlord to order specialist parts or appoint specialist contractors. If these situations occur, it will keep residents informed of the progress of their repair and provide updates.
  2. Records show the resident initially reported that the skylight window would not open in July 2021. The landlord provided a repair invoice to show it fixed the window in September 2021.
  3. In September 2022, the resident reported that the window had stopped opening again. Neither party disputes that, following the resident’s later request for repair, the landlord failed to progress matters within its agreed service level. This understandably caused the resident concern and frustration, as she explained within her complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As such, when the resident reported that the skylight window would not open in September 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially explore the option of replacing/reconfiguring the remote control and/or the sensor.
  5. The landlord demonstrated that it made enquiries with various external sub-contractors to progress the repair, however several refused the work as it was not within their technical remit. The resident explained that sub-contractors were unsuccessful reprogramming the remote control for the windows in October and November 2022. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the landlord to explore this option in the first instance, particularly as the initial information available to it indicated the fault may be with the remote control for the window.
  6. On 13 February 2023, a specialist sub-contractor submitted a quote to the landlord to replace the motorised skylight windows in the bathroom and hallway following an inspection in December 2022. The sub-contractor informed the landlord that it could not fix the problem by replacing the remote control due to the age of the system. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of the specialist.
  7. Within the landlord’s complaint response, it promised that it would approve either a window replacement or a replacement remote within 3 months. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to detail the remedy offered to put things right and the details of any outstanding actions. The landlord’s response here was too vague. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord ought to have established the position with its sub-contractor during the complaint investigation and updated the resident accordingly with a defined plan of action. Its failure to do so meant the resident remained uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns, considering the damp and mould in the bathroom.
  8. After the end of the complaint process, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2023 confirming the work order for the replacement of 2 motorised windows and said its contractor would contact her directly to arrange this. For completeness, the landlord informed this Service that it replaced the windows in August 2024.
  9. Within its complaint response, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation for the delay progressing works. It is surmised that around £200 of the £400 awarded for this aspect of the complaint was for the delay progressing the window resolution (although the landlord has not been explicit in its calculations). We consider this sum appropriate for cases where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. While its acknowledgment and offer have been considered in this report as sufficient to remedy its failings, the landlord should consider our comments on the lack of clarity of its promised follow up action. This learning should be considered in its future complaint responses.

Extractor fan

  1. The landlord’s records demonstrate that the resident reported a broken extractor fan in April 2022. The Ombudsman is of the view the landlord ought to have identified this at an earlier opportunity, considering its attendances regarding damp and mould in the property in 2021.
  2. The landlord’s contractor reported that a specialist ventilation sub-contractor needed to assess the work. The landlord’s records indicate that from June 2022 to February 2023, it repeatedly chased its appointed specialist regarding the repair. At the same time, its communication records show that the resident spent time chasing for updates and attempted to drive the repairs forward. The landlord failed to evidence that it provided meaningful updates to the resident. The Ombudsman finds the communication failings exacerbated the situation.
  3. Within the landlord’s complaint response dated 22 February 2023, it said it would follow up with its subcontractor to find out why the extraction works remain outstanding. It is a concern to the Ombudsman that as of November 2024, the repair/replacement of the fan remains outstanding.
  4. After the end of its complaint process, the landlord informed the resident that due to the position of the boiler, it could not install a new extraction unit because the area is obstructed. It explained to this Service that it is currently exploring relocating the loft hatch, and ventilation contractors are due to conduct a survey no later than 18 November 2024. While the Ombudsman understands this is a complex matter, it is unreasonable for it to still be outstanding more than 2 and a half years after the resident’s initial request for repair. This indicates a lack of management and oversight in the landlord’s repairs service delivery.
  5. Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed the resident’s request for repair to the skylight windows and extractor fan. There were avoidable delays progressing repairs, a lack of active repair management and a lack of engagement from the sub-contractors appointed by the landlord. The landlord failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident, particularly as it was aware the lack of ventilation was contributing to damp and mould in the bathroom.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. At stage 2, the landlord awarded £400 for the resident’s, “time, trouble, and inconvenience for the window and fan, considering the future impact until resolved (3 months)”. The Ombudsman considers that £200 of this was for the issues with the extractor fan, although this has not been confirmed with the landlord. Considering the evidence available, this sum is not sufficient to remedy the failures identified.
  7. The Ombudsman understands that the situation with the fan remains outstanding more than 18 months after the final complaint response. While there are complexities to the matter, overall, the Ombudsman is of the view the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint and failed to put things right. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident initially complained on 10 October 2022. The landlord failed to respond at stage 1. It issued its stage 2 response 94 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept the resident’s complaint open at stage 2 for an unreasonable duration.
  3. It is a concern that the landlord did not issue a formal complaint response at stage 1. Having 2 separate complaint stages allows a landlord to consider a case at a deeper level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint. It also helps to ensure a full investigation of both sides of a complaint. Complaints can provide insights into service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems, and be a catalyst for organisational learning. The landlord acted unfairly here and against the Code.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint handling delay compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns. The landlord’s delay in progressing the complaint also prevented her from referring her case to this Service at the earliest opportunity and contributed to further delays resolving the substantive repair issues. Nonetheless, the landlord recognised its failures in its complaint handling, apologised, and offered compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  5. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling, communication, and repairs provision.
  6. The landlord offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom.
  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 request for repairs to a motorised skylight window satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration is the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a broken extractor fan.
  4. 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 complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £950 compensation (inclusive of the £800 offered throughout its complaints process for the substantive issues) comprised of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould from May 2021 to December 2022.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the extractor fan repairs from April 2022 to February 2023.
    3. Complete a follow-up inspection for damp and mould in the bathroom now it has restored some ventilation by replacing the skylight window. Within 14 days of the inspection, it must write to the resident to set out any related repairs it is responsible for (if any) and a timescale for the repairs.
    4. Write to the resident setting out an action plan with timescales for remedying the extraction issue in the bathroom.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £150 previously offered for its handling of the complaint, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £200 previously offered for its handling of the issues with the skylight window from September 2022 to February 2023, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  3. The landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident from the date of its stage 2 response, up to the date it replaced the skylight windows. It should write to the resident to set out its position.
  4. The landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident to reflect the delays repairing the extractor fan, from the date of its stage 2 response to date. It should write to the resident to set out its position.