Sanctuary Housing Association (202303854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303854

Sanctuary Housing Association

12 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak from a radiator and the loss of heating and hot water.
2. Issues with the electricity to the upstairs of her property.
3. A leak from her roof.
4. Damp and mould in her property and her concerns that this was being impacted by the void property next door.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 27 October 2003. The property is a 2–bedroomed house in a row of houses. The adjoining void property referred to in this report is also owned by the landlord.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord’s customer service officer emailed its complaints team to advise that the resident had called that day and ‘expressed a level of dissatisfaction in relation to the black mould in the property’. The officer said that the resident was ‘very emotional’ on the call and that her report had been logged with repairs.
The same day the resident followed up on her call with an email logging a formal complaint with the landlord. In her complaint the resident said she suffered from anxiety and depression and so her email ‘may not be written as concisely’ as she would like. The resident went on to explain that:
1. The black mould was an issue which had been brought to the landlord’s attention previously. She had had walled vents and extractor fans fitted to rectify the problem in the past, which were somewhat successful and involved cleaning the mould from time to time. However, she did not think the vents and extractor fans, and her repeated cleaning, were an adequate resolution to the problem. The resident suggested the ‘derelict’ void property next door could be a contributing factor to the current condition of her home.
2. It had been 4 days since she reported that her boiler had stopped working.
  1. The 24-hour emergency call outs were adding up but made no difference.
  2. She currently had her 70-year-old mother living with her.
  3. The engineer that attended the repair found no water reaching the boiler. When the engineer checked her radiators, he found that her bedroom floor was ‘soaking wet.’ He concluded the leak was somewhere under the floorboards and that this explained the lack of water reaching the boiler.
The following day, 2 December 2022:
1. The resident requested dehumidifiers from the landlord.
2. A job was raised to source the leak from a radiator which, it was noted, had ‘caused the boiler not to work’ and needed to be replaced. The landlord also noted that dehumidifiers would be needed ‘to get rid of mould on a wall’ which was ‘very bad indeed’ and ‘needed attention very soon.’
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 December 2022.
On 15 December 2022, the resident provided the landlord with additional information about her complaint. The resident said that:
1. On 7 November 2022, engineers had turned up stating they were there to fix/look at the radiator. The resident said that this was not needed as the leak had been contained but she was expecting a new radiator to be fitted, so that she could use her bedroom again.
2. She informed the engineer who attended on 7 November 2022 of a new leak she had found, which he attended to. The resident said she was advised to keep an eye on it in case it continued. The resident reiterated that she believed her heating system to be compromised and in need of further attention.
3. Both she and the engineer had requested dehumidifiers, which she said had ‘clearly fallen on deaf ears.’
4. She had raised the issue of black mould from 28 November 2022 and had submitted her complaint on 1 December 2022 after ‘a very emotional phone call because nothing was being done’.
5. It was now the 15 December and there had been no contact with regard to tackling the damp in her home. She was promised a surveyor would attend but again had received no response.
6. She was currently running electric heaters to try to dry out the carpet in her unusable bedroom and she had washed the walls with bleach to remove the surface mould. The resident said that she would like a refund for these additional costs.
7. She went on to say:
  1. That she was unable to use both bedrooms in her home, and that it was ‘beyond (her) understanding as to how (the landlord) was expecting (them) to cope.’
  2. This was having a knock-on effect on her and her family’s lives as they were all feeling the effects differently, from anger to anxiety. Her home felt ‘unsafe and dirty’ as a result of the damp and leaks they had experienced. The resident said that their clothing, shoes, and other personal items were being damaged and that it was difficult to wash clothes and dry them properly.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord raised a job to inspect the reported damp in the resident’s property. The record referred to this being ‘in every room’. It was also noted that the resident vented the property and had dehumidifiers. The same day the resident also reported that the electrics were out to the upstairs of her property. The landlord noted that the resident had isolated these, as water had penetrated them, and when they were used, they ‘knocked out’ the electrics downstairs. The landlord noted that ‘once the roof was fixed’ the resident would call the landlord to attend and ensure the electrics were safe and to reinstall them. The landlord raised a job to repair the roof the same day.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023. The landlord confirmed that this was in response to the resident’s complaint of 1 December 2022. In its response the landlord:
1. Said it had asked its surveyor to contact the resident to carry out a joint visit with its specialist damp contractor.
2. Offered the resident a total of £400 compensation made up of £200 for time and inconvenience and £200 for complaint handling.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 March 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 April 2023 in which it:
1. Acknowledged that no recognition was given for the delay in its stage 1 acknowledgement and its response. It also acknowledged that it had not provided a response to the resident having had no heating or hot water for 4 days in December 2022. The landlord offered its ‘sincere apologies’ for this, and for the inconvenience of having no heating in her bedroom between 2 December 2022 and 25 January 2023, the date when the radiator was replaced. The landlord offered the resident a total of £500 for these failures, made up of:
  1. £150 for the delay in its stage 1 acknowledgement and response.
  2. £100 for its miscommunication in its stage 1 response.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by having no heating or hot water for 4 days.
  4. £200 for the inconvenience of having no heating in her bedroom from 2 December 2022 to 25 January 2023.
2. Said that, with regards to damp and mould in her home and the leaking roof, it could find no records to show that it received any reports prior to the resident’s complaint and therefore, this part of her complaint was not upheld. The landlord then went on to say:
  1. Following the resident’s report on 1 December 2022, an inspection was arranged with its surveyor for the 7 February 2023. On completion of this inspection, damp was found in a few locations and mould was found throughout her home. Its surveyor recorded that the mould issue was enhanced due to the resident’s overcrowding conditions.
  2. Its surveyor had located damp and mould below the staircase. However, due to the number of personal belongings stored there, and the resident’s reluctance to move these items, the area could not be inspected fully at that time.
  3. Following his inspection, its surveyor raised a works order for its damp specialist to attend and complete a full survey of her home. This survey was scheduled for the 23 March 2023; however, the resident had advised that she would not be available until after the end of March 2023 and so the joint inspection had been re-arranged for 2 May 2023.
  4. Any works identified from its inspection on 2 May 2023 would be raised with its Property Services Team and the resident would be notified of any further appointments.
3. Said, with regards to the roof leak which the resident reported on 2 January 2023:
  1. It was not clear from its records when a works order was raised but its records showed that its contractor attended on 28 March 2023. They were unable to locate a leak and therefore as a precautionary measure they cleared all the gutters.
  2. As the resident continued to raise concerns with her roof, this would also be inspected internally during the damp survey on the 2 May 2023.
4. Noted that the resident reported on 24 January 2023 that she had isolated her upstairs electrics as water had penetrated them from the roof leak. The landlord said that:
  1. Its records were ‘very unclear’ with regards to its attendance and inspections with regards to this.
  2. Following the resident’s contact on the 1 April 2023 to report that water had tripped the electrics in the upstairs of her home, it could see that the electrics were inspected on the 4 April 2023 to make the electrics safe. However, its records did not show the outcome of this inspection.
  3. It apologised for the inconvenience and said it had requested a further inspection of the electrics, which was completed on 12 April 2023, with no issues identified. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation, made up of £100 for its unclear record keeping and £200 for the inconvenience caused by having no upstairs electric, the timescale for this not being clear from the resident’s nor its own records.
5. Said that, with regards to the vacant property next door, its voids team had confirmed that works were slowly progressing and ‘hopefully soon,’ it would be allocated to new tenants. It also said that it had asked that its voids team check that the neighbouring property was not impacting on the resident’s home in any way.
On 10 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she would not be accepting the landlord’s offer.
The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 14 October 2024, which it said was a follow up to its previous response of 19 April 2023. In its response the landlord:
1. Apologised that the resident’s concerns regarding the damp and mould were not fully identified by surveyor inspections in the first instance. The landlord offered its ‘sincere apologies’ for this.
2. Said it could find no records to show that the resident had reported any issues with damp and mould within her home until her complaint of 1 December 2022. It also noted that within her complaint the resident had said that due to the overcrowded nature of her home she had not located the mould sooner.
3. Said that, following its previous response, it became apparent that the repairs required to the neighbouring void property were impacting the resident’s home. The landlord again referred to the overcrowding situation which it said was also impacting on high condensation levels, within the resident’s home.
4. Acknowledged the length of time taken to complete the repairs to the neighbouring void property and that its communication with the resident about this was not to the standard that it would expect. The landlord offered its ‘sincere apologies’ for the impact that this caused to the resident’s home. The landlord said that its findings had been discussed with its Voids Team who were reminded of the importance of ensuring if any repairs were raised within its void properties that these were undertaken within a satisfactory timescale.
5. Noted that the resident had had to by 2 dehumidifiers, which it noted she had been reimbursed for, along with the running costs:
  1. £1,215.02 for 405 days at £3 per day.
  2. £429.98 for the cost of 2 dehumidifier units.
6. Noted that the resident’s refusal to be decanted from her home, delayed and prevented any remedial works being undertaken.
7. In recognition of her families’ circumstances, its Housing Team had requested alternative housing for her as a permanent move. The landlord acknowledged that this had taken some time, due to the availability of suitable housing.
8. It appreciated the length of time that the resident’s concerns had been outstanding, particularly as those concerns were originally raised in December 2022. The landlord again referred to the delay in progressing works due to the resident’s reluctance to be decanted from her home.
9. Offered the resident a further £4,780 compensation made up of:
  1. £500 for the length of time the complaint had been open at investigation stage.
  2. £1,000 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by it not completing the repairs to her home in 2023 and 2024.
  3. £2,780 for the loss of enjoyment of her home from 1 December 2022, when she first reported the damp issues in her home.
  4. £500 decoration costs for her new property, in addition to a paint pack.
10. The landlord also noted that:
  1. It would cover the removal costs, due to the inconvenience that she had incurred.
  2. It would reimburse the resident for the cost of floor covering/carpets to her new property. The landlord noted that this was usually a tenant’s responsibility. However, as she would not be able to take the floor coverings from her previous home with her, and if she provided quotes for carpets, it would consider reimbursement as long as the quotes were reasonable and proportionate to the size of her new home.
  3. If the resident had any arrears, the amounts offered would be offset against these.
On 26 November 2024, the landlord noted that the sign up for the resident’s new property went ahead but the tenancy start date had been delayed due to snagging works, which it noted the resident was happy with. The following day the landlord also noted that it had spoken to the resident and had booked the removals for 5 and 6 December 2024.
In an internal email of 2 December 2024, the landlord confirmed that payment of the compensation had been approved.
In a telephone call with this Service on 21 January 2025 the resident advised that she had moved to her new property.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions.
As this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action impacted the resident or her family’s health and wellbeing. We can also neither calculate or award damages, as these matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of any failures by the landlord.

Assessment

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs and to do so within a reasonable time of being given notice of the same. Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
The Ombudsman also expects landlords to provide residents with regular communication and updates about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for any delay and the expected date of completion.
The landlord’s repairs procedure sets out timescales within which it aims to respond to different types of repairs:
1. Emergency: any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to health and safety. Listed within this category of repair are water leak coming through the ceiling, no water supply and heating repairs (during the winter season) where there is no other heating. The response to all emergency repair requests is to attend and make safe the property within 24 hours of receipt of the repair request. The procedure notes that a second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works following initial attendance.
2. Appointed: These apply to all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required. The procedure confirms that the landlord will aim to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days and at the appointment time originally agreed with the resident.
The landlord’s repairs procedure also states that:
1. It will provide service users with the anticipated response times for all repairs and proactive communication for all repairs.
2. Despite best efforts to complete all repairs on time, this is not always possible. Some repairs require specialist parts to be ordered, or for specialist contractors to be called in. If these situations occur, the landlord must keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update when the work will be completed.
3. If the repair cannot be fully diagnosed at the first point of contact a pre-inspection of the property should be arranged and completed within 10 working days of works being requested. Assessment of the damage should then be completed within a further 10 working days and the service user must be kept informed at every stage of the process by the Surveyor.

Response to the resident’s report of a leak from a radiator and the loss of heating and hot water.

Having been advised of the repair the landlord was ‘‘on notice’’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 1 December 2022, she advised that her boiler had stopped working 4 days before and that despite engineers having attended the issue was not resolved.
On 5 December 2022, the resident chased the landlord saying that she still had ‘no heating and no hot water whatsoever’.
The landlord’s records note that the repair to the leak from the radiator in the resident’s bedroom was resolved on 6 December 2022. Following this the radiator needed replacing. This was not completed until 25 January 2023, 48 days later.
The landlord made no reference to this matter in its stage 1 response of 13 March 2023. However, in its stage 2 response a month later, on 19 April 2023, it did acknowledge and apologise for the resident having had no heating or hot water for 4 days in December 2022, and for the inconvenience of having no heating in her bedroom between 2 December 2022 and 25 January 2023.
To make this right the landlord offered the resident a total of £250 compensation made up of:
1. £50 for the inconvenience caused by having no heating or hot water.
2. £200 for the loss of heating in her bedroom.
Given that the resident had a total loss of heating and hot water for 4 days, and a partial loss of heating for a further 48 days, the £250 compensation offered provided the resident with reasonable redress for this element of her complaint.
This is because the landlord’s compensation guidance states that in cases where the resident has a total loss of heating it will offer £3 per day between 1 October and 30 April. It will also offer £3 per day for a total loss of hot water.
As the resident was without both heating and hot water for a period of 4 days, the landlord would have been expected to have paid her £24 compensation (based on a payment of £3 for each of the 4 days she was without heating, plus a further £3 for each of the 4 days she was without hot water). Whilst the landlord’s compensation policy only refers to the total loss of heating, it also offered the resident in excess of £3 per day for each of the additional 48 days she had no heating in her bedroom.
Whilst there were evidently failures by the landlord with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged these and offered the resident compensation that was proportionate to its failings. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress has been made with regards to this element of the complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports of issues with the electricity to the upstairs of her property

On 23 January 2023, the resident reported that the electrics to the upstairs of her property had failed. The landlord noted that the resident had isolated these, as water had penetrated them and that when they were used, they ‘knocked out’ the electrics downstairs. The landlord noted that ‘once the roof was fixed’ the resident would call back for it to attend to ensure they were safe and to reinstall them.
Given the potential health and safety risk of electrics having been affected by water ingress, and in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, the landlord would have been expected to have responded to the resident’s report as an emergency repair.
However, the landlord failed to raise a job to check the electrics until 4 April 2023, over 2 months later. The landlord’s repair records indicate that once the job was raised it was responded to as an emergency repair and was made safe the same day, and that further investigation was required regarding the electrics tripping. However, this should have been done much earlier and, according to its own repairs policy, within 24 hours.
The landlord addressed the issue of the electrics in the resident’s property in its stage 2 response of 19 April 2023, acknowledging that its records were ‘very unclear’ with regards to this matter for which it offered the resident £100. It also offered her £200 for the inconvenience caused, bringing the total payable for this element of the complaint to £300.
However, it incorrectly stated that the resident had not reported that the upstairs electrics had been ‘tripped’ until 1 April 2023. Its position that the works were completed on 12 April 2023, with no issues identified, is not reflected in the evidence seen by this Service. This is because the landlord’s repair records indicate that this was not the case, stating that this job was not confirmed as finished until 2 May 2023, with the switch line being replaced in the toilet upstairs.
Further, when acknowledging the gaps in its own records the landlord also implied that somehow the resident’s record keeping was also to blame, which was not an appropriate position for it to take.
It is for the landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records in order to enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations. Whilst residents keeping their own records can assist both the landlord and this Service in their investigations, they are not obliged to do so.
Having considered all the circumstances, including the acknowledgements and compensation offered by the landlord, it is the view of this Service that the inaccuracies in the landlord’s response of 19 April 2023 and the position it took with regards to implying that the resident was somehow also responsible for its lack of records, amounts to service failure.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100, bringing the total payable for this element of her complaint to £400.

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her roof

The first reference to the roof, in the evidence seen for the period covered by this report, was on 5 December 2022. In that correspondence the resident said she had advised the landlord on 4 December 2022 that the ceiling in her bedroom was ‘dripping with water’. The resident said that she had called the emergency repair line and that she had been told, as it was out of hours, she would have to wait 24 hours for an engineer to attend. The resident said at that time the leak was ‘uncontainable.’
The landlord did not then raise a job to repair the roof until 23 January 2023, some 6 weeks later.
On 13 March 2023, the landlord noted that it had spoken to its roof contractor who confirmed that the repairs to the roof had been completed. However, by 28 March 2023, the landlord’s repair records noted that, despite the flashing having been completed and the guttering cleared, the leak was still coming into the property and ‘(was) worse now as the water was running through the bathroom and the living room’. The landlord noted that the roof was investigated but the engineers could not find any leak other than through the Velux window.
In correspondence with the resident on 16 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged that further works were required to the roof, but these could not be completed until an asbestos survey of the roof had been undertaken.
Despite the landlord acknowledging that the roof works could not be completed until an asbestos survey had been carried out, and the survey being requested on 17 May 2023, it was not until 9 August 2023 that this was chased by the landlord. This response failed to evidence the level of urgency that would be expected given the landlord had been aware of the issue with the roof for 5 months. It is also evident, from an email from the landlord’s surveyor to the specialist damp contractor on 9 February 2023, that the landlord was also aware of the leak from the roof being linked to the damp in the hallway above the stairs.
Having been chased by the landlord on 9 August 2023 the asbestos contractor advised that they had attempted to contact the resident on 17 May and 4 July 2023. However, it was not until 23 August 2023, 2 weeks later, that the landlord contacted the resident to ask that she arrange access with the asbestos contractor.
The resident responded on 7 September 2023 to advise that she had made the appointment with the asbestos contractor and the earliest date they could offer her was in October 2023. The resident also said that the asbestos contractor had told her they had been given her landline, and not her mobile number, by the landlord which had resulted in the ‘no contact’ as they were sending texts and calls to her landline.
The asbestos survey was completed on 6 October 2023 and no asbestos was detected. On 8 November 2023, the roofing contractor confirmed that the works to the roof had been completed on 6 November 2023. However:
1. In an internal email of 5 January 2024, the landlord’s surveyor advised that they had raised an order with their roofing contractor, with a target date of 15 January 2024.
2. In an email to the resident on 27 February 2024, the landlord advised that it was waiting for the roof works to be approved. The landlord’s records note its operations director approved the works the same day.
3. The landlord’s repair records note on 3 March 2023 that it was ‘unable to start’ the damp and mould works ‘until the roof issues (were) rectified’.
4. It was then not until 15 March 2024, over a year after the resident had reported the leak from her roof, that the landlord confirmed, in an email to her, that the roof works had been completed.
It is evident that the landlord’s actions throughout show a lack of urgency in progressing the repair to the roof despite the evident distress and inconvenience this caused the resident. The landlord had also been aware, as early as a year earlier, of a link between the leak to the roof and the damp in the property. Further there was a failure to provide clear actions with time limits of when, and what, it intended to do, with no evidence of it adopting a proactive approach to resolving the leak to the roof.
These were significant failures by the landlord which would have understandably caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The complaint process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the roof leak, to put any failures right, to recognise the detriment any failures caused the resident and to learn from the outcomes. However, it failed to do so.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 19 April 2023 was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and failed to evidence any meaningful investigation into its actions with regards to the roof. The landlord made no reference to the report that the leak was still occurring and had got ‘worse,’ nor that the leak from the roof had been linked to the damp in the resident’s property.
Further, in its follow up stage 2 response of 14 October 2024, whilst the landlord offered £1,000 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience cause by it not completing ‘the repairs’ to her home, it made no further mention of its handling of the repairs to the residents roof. It is therefore reasonable to assume, given that the landlord acknowledged no failures with regards to the roof repair, that none of the £1,000 offered related to this element of the resident’s complaint.
The combination of all these failures amount to severe maladministration by the landlord. To be fair to the resident and to make this right the landlord has been ordered to arrange for an apology to be given to the resident by its chief executive and to pay the resident and additional £1,000 compensation.
Given that it has evidenced limited, if any, learning from the outcome of this complaint, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in relation to its handling of the roof repairs in this case.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property and her concerns that this was being impacted by the void property next door.

Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and the landlord has an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include damp and mould growth. The landlord would therefore have been expected to inspect the property and carry out any repairs that it was responsible for within a reasonable period.
As the landlord accepted, the resident had been reporting damp and mouldy living conditions since 1 December 2022. While it completed some investigations, the landlord failed to complete full and effective works that resolved the damp and mould in the resident’s home. These works remained outstanding at the point of its follow up final response of 14 October 2024, almost 2 years after the resident’s report of 1 December 2022.
For most of the almost 2-year period reviewed by the Ombudsman, the landlord failed to evidence the level of urgency that would be expected given the known extent of the damp and mould. It also failed to proactively keep the resident updated on what it was doing to address the damp at her home which meant that she had to repeatedly chase it for updates. This placed an unfair burden on her and was contrary to the standards set out in the landlord’s repairs procedure.
As set out in our spotlight report on damp and mould, in addition to completing the repairs within a reasonable period of time the landlord would also be expected to assess risk and recognise the negative effect of damp living conditions on health and well-being. However, in this case, there is no evidence of the landlord carrying out any form of formal risk assessment until its asset surveyor provided a decant risk assessment, on 16 August 2024, in which it was noted that the air quality was at an unsafe level with the damp and mould being at HHSRS category 1. There is no evidence of the landlord assessing the risk to the resident prior to this.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord took steps to mould wash the resident’s property, there is no evidence that it considered other measures, for example a decant until 10 August 2023. At that time, the surveyor was asked in an internal email whether, looking at the photos the resident had provided, the resident should be decanted. There is no evidence of any further action being taken with regards to this until almost a year later, 1 July 2024, when the landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident about a decant.
It is understandable that the resident was caused substantial distress and inconvenience by the ongoing damp and mould in her property. It is also understandable that this was exacerbated by the excessive delay in the landlord completing the required repairs, its failure to effectively manage the process and its poor communication with her.
Throughout the period considered in this report, there was a lack of clarity and consistency in the landlord’s approach. The landlord failed to evidence that it kept the resident appropriately updated as to the progress of the works and any issues it may have experienced.
That these were significant failures has not been disputed. An internal email from the landlord’s regional director on 30 May 2024 stated that they thought it would ‘be a miracle if (the landlord was to) avoid a severe maladministration’. In a further internal email of the same day the landlord’s performance improvement officer said they agreed and ‘whilst there had been some access issues, these did not wholly contribute to the significant delays this resident (had) experienced.’
The complaints process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property, to put any failures right, to recognise the detriment any failures caused the resident and to learn from the outcomes.
It has been noted that the landlord had taken the resident’s email of 1 December 2022 as a report of damp and mould. Given it had no record of this being reported previously it was reasonable for it not to consider its response of 13 March 2023 as a stage 1 in respect of the damp. However, given that it said in that response it had ‘reviewed all available system notes and records alongside speaking with the staff members concerned’ it is reasonable for this Service to consider its response in this assessment.
At the time of its stage 1 response, 3 months had passed since the resident’s report and no progress had been made since its surveyor’s visit of 7 February 2023. However, the landlord failed to reflect this and simply said that it had asked its surveyor to contact the resident to carry out a joint visit with its specialist damp contractor. The landlord also said that an email had been sent to the resident’s housing officer asking them to contact her regarding her overcrowding issues.
In its stage 2 response of 19 April 2023, which in the case of the damp and mould would have been its stage 1 response, the landlord made no apology for its lack of action. By that time, it had been 4 months since the resident reported the mould. It also failed to say what it would do to put things right, apart from referring to its surveyors visit on 7 February 2023 and again saying that an order had been raised for a damp specialist to attend, which had been scheduled for 23 March 2023, but which had been moved to 2 May 2023 due to the resident’s availability. Further:
1. Rather than reviewing its own actions, the landlord focused on blaming the resident. This it did by referring to the mould being enhanced due to overcrowding and that the damp below the stairs was due to the number of possessions stored there and the resident’s reluctance to move them.
2. It also failed to take the resident’s concerns regarding the impact of the neighbouring property seriously. Its response was dismissive stating that its voids team had checked and the void property was not impacting on the resident’s property in any way, without referring to any evidence to support this. This Service has also been provided with no evidence that any meaningful investigation had been carried out by the void team into the concerns raised about the neighbouring property at that time.
In its final response of 14 October 2024, the landlord acknowledged delays in the initial identification of the damp and mould, the time taken to complete the repairs to the neighbouring void property, and its communication with the resident about this issue. The landlord apologised for the impact of the delay of these works on her home and said that its findings had been discussed with its voids team.
The landlord also offered the resident and additional £3,780 made up of:
1. £1,000 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by it not completing the repairs to her home in 2023 and 2024.
2. £2,780 for the loss of enjoyment of her home from 1 December 2022, when she first reported the damp issues in her home.
3. £500 decoration costs for her new property, in addition to a paint pack.
It apologised that the damp and mould issues were not fully identified in the first instance and acknowledged the length of time that the resident’s concerns had been outstanding. However, it did not acknowledge any failure to take timely action with regards to assessing the risk and recognising the negative effect of damp living conditions on the resident’s health and well-being. Nor did it evidence any learning from the outcome of this complaint, which is a further failure on its part.
The landlord did offer mould washes to the resident in August and September 2023, which it said she had refused access for. However, this was challenged by the resident who said that these visits were unannounced and that no one from the landlord had been in contact with her to discuss moving or storing her belongings for this to go ahead. In addition, by this time the landlord’s specialist damp and mould contractor had already advised that ‘there were so many external defects to the neighbouring property that any mould treatment carried out (to the resident’s property) right now will undoubtedly return over winter.’
It is evident that the landlord’s focus was on the repairs to the void property and its ability to let this rather than the impact of the damp and mould on the resident, for which it showed little empathy. This is evidenced in the landlord’s response of 19 April 2023, when it said that, with regards to the vacant property next door, its voids team had confirmed that works were slowly progressing with that property and ‘hopefully soon, it will be allocated to new tenants’. It is unclear why the landlord would believe that it being able to re-let the property would provide any comfort to the resident given that no meaningful action had been taken to address the damp and mould in her property at that time.
The landlord also repeatedly sought to blame the resident for the delays. In its final response of 14 October 2024, the landlord:
1. Blamed the resident for the damp and mould because of the overcrowding and the number of belongings she had in her property. Whilst the resident has not disputed that the overcrowding had an impact, it is evident that this would have been minor given the extensive repairs that were required to resolve the issue. By focusing on blaming the resident the landlord failed to provide any insight into how its actions had led to this taking so long and why it had failed over such an extensive period of time to make any meaningful progress with regards to the damp and mould in her home.
2. Blamed the resident’s refusal to be decanted from her home for the delay and said that this prevented any remedial works to be undertaken, which was evidently not the case. What is evident is that from early on in the repairs process the landlord was aware that the damp and mould in the resident’s property was extensive, and that complex works were needed to resolve this issue. It was also evident as early as December 2022, that the damp and mould were having a significant impact on the resident. However, as referred to previously, the landlord did not discuss a decant with the resident until 1 July 2024, approximately 19 months later. The length of time between the decant initially being discussed with the resident on 1 July 2024 and the sign up of 26 November 2024 was approximately 4.5 months, significantly less than the 19-month delay by the landlord. It was therefore not reasonable for the landlord to seek to entirely blame the resident for this delay.
In light of the above and the level of failings by the landlord in this case, it is the view of this Service that the apologies and compensation offered by the landlord in its final response of 14 October 2024 do not provide the resident with reasonable redress in this case. That said, were it not for acknowledgements made by the landlord and its offer of compensation, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint.
As a result of these additional failures a finding of maladministration has been made for which the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that the landlord pay the resident an additional £1,000 compensation. This is made up of:
1. £500 for the distress to the resident of the landlord seeking to unfairly blame her for damp and for the delays in a decant being offered to her.
2. £500 for its failure to evidence any learning from this complaint, outside of the discussions it had with its voids team.
The landlord has also been ordered to include its handling of the damp and mould in the previously ordered senior management review. The landlord is then to provide this Service with a copy of its review which is to include details of what learning it intends to take as a result.
In her complaint the resident asked that the landlord compensate her for the damage caused to her belongings as a result of the damp.
The Ombudsman may order compensation towards the costs of damaged property/belongings as redress in such cases where the evidence shows the damage would not have occurred but for the maladministration.
In this case, the landlord was responsible for the property where the damp and mould originated and was responsible for failing to repair it in line with its obligations. There was also an excessive and unreasonable delay in its response. As such it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident a contribution towards the cost of replacing her furniture and belongings damaged by the damp and mould.
This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation guidance which states that it can consider offering compensation for damage to or loss of belongings due to its actions or inactions.
The landlord’s compensation guidance also states that this will not be paid where a resident has unreasonably prevented or delayed a resolution or where there is evidence that a resident’s lifestyle has resulted in condensation and mould growth due to lack of heating or ventilation, or lack of adequate airflow.
In its final response of 14 October 2024, the landlord recognised that the resident would not be able to take the floor coverings from her previous home to her new one. To make this right, the landlord said that if the resident could provide quotes for carpets, then it would consider reimbursing her for the reasonable costs of these. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. However, given that is compensation policy allows it to pay compensation for damage to or loss of belongings due to its actions or inactions, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered offering further compensation in this case.
However, the landlord refused to pay any additional compensation. Instead, it again blamed the resident for refusing access to treat the mould in her home, the number of possessions she had and that she should have stored these away from the main area of concern to protect them from damage.
Given that this Service has already determined that the landlord seeking to unfairly blame the resident for the damp and for the delays in a decant being offered to her, this was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take. To make this right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £500 compensation towards the cost of any items that needed to be replaced due to damp and mould damage.
The landlord has also been ordered to consider its position regarding compensating the resident for damaged belongings in its overall review of its handling of the damp and mould in this case. As part of this review, it is to consider whether its offer to reimburse the resident for the reasonable cost of new carpets for her new home and the £500 ordered by this Service is sufficient. The landlord is to provide this Service with the outcome of this and an explanation of its position, and what action, if any, it intends to take as a result.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak from a radiator and the loss of heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the electricity to the upstairs of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property and her concerns that this was being impacted by the void property next door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology to be given to the resident by its chief executive.
2. Pay the resident a further £2,600 compensation. This being in addition to the £5,580 already paid. This is made up of:
  1. A further £100 for the additional failures identified with regards to its response to the resident’s reports of issues with the electricity to the upstairs of her property.
  2. £1,000 for the failures identified in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her roof.
  3. £1,500 for the failures identified in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and her concerns that this was being impacted by the void property next door. This being made up of:

(1) £500 for the distress to the resident of the landlord seeking to unfairly blame her for the damp and for the delays in a decant being offered to her.

(2) £500 for its failure to evidence any learning from this complaint, outside of the discussions it had with its voids team.

(3) £500 towards the cost of any items that needed to be replaced due to damp and mould damage.

It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to carry out a senior management review of the failures identified in this case. This must include both its handling of the repairs to the roof and the damp and mould in the resident’s home, and its position regarding compensating the resident for damaged belongings. The landlord is to provide this Service with the outcome of its review and the reasoning behind any actions it intends, or does not intend, to take as a result.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders in accordance with the timescales set out above.