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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202312713)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312713

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 June 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 25 August 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The property was a new build and was still under the latent defect period with the developer when she raised reports of damp and mould. She lived at the property between 25 August 2021 to 1 October 2023 with her partner and newborn baby.
  2. On 4 October 2021, the resident reported issues of damp and mould and chased this again on 29 October 2021. She reported damage to her furniture and skirting boards. The landlord’s repair records on 1 November 2021 note “Urgent- Severe damp throughout the property”. The resident continued to report damp and mould until 22 December 2022 when she reported that she had disposed of sofas due to mould, used a dehumidifier, regularly cleaned the mould, and painted the walls with anti mould paint. She said that she was 22 weeks pregnant and that the conditions she was living in were not safe.
  3. On 10 May 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She said that the property had damp and mould since she moved in. The mould had destroyed furniture which she had to replace. The resident was concerned for the health of her newborn baby because of the mould. She reported that the stress was immense and affected her mental health. As a resolution, she wanted to move property and compensation for the replacement furniture.
  4. On 20 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for the delays and continuous chasing which caused the resident to move from the property. It acknowledged that her furniture had been damaged by mould and she recently moved from the property. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord offered £3500 compensation compromising:
    1. £3200 for damaged items
    2. £300 for time, trouble, and inconvenience
  5. On 3 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She was unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 to review the compensation offered for the damaged items.
  6. On 27 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It reviewed the stage 1 offer for replacement furniture and asked for evidence of further damaged items for which she sought compensation. It identified complaint handling failures and apologised for the delay in providing its complaint responses. It offered further compensation of £350 for the delay in providing a complaint response, inconvenience, time and trouble, and lack of communication.
  7. On 10 January 2024, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She was also unhappy with the length of time taken to move her to a new property. She said that the landlord blamed her for the damp in the flat but she knew it was more than just the ventilation in the flat. She reported that she was pregnant and had a newborn baby while she lived in the property

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also 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 is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that require remedying.
  2. Following a report of damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  3. It is not disputed that there were failings. Through its complaint response the landlord accepted failings for its response to the residents reports of damp and mould. It apologised for the delay in addressing the damp and mould, and for time, trouble, and inconvenience. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would usually be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. It is our finding that the landlord acted fairly when it paid £3,200 to replace damaged possessions. This demonstrated the landlord taking responsibility for the damage caused by damp and mould. Furthermore, at stage 2 it asked for the resident to provide further evidence of damaged items for consideration. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The resident first reported damp on 4 October 2021 and remained in the property until 1 October 2023. Based on the evidence, in those 2 years the only action the landlord took to address the damp was on 18 July 2022 when it repaired sealant around the bath which was causing a leak in the bathroom and the wall connected to the bedroom. This was inappropriate.
  6. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware from the beginning that the issue was likely structural and should have been remedied by the developer. An internal email on 26 November 2021, indicates that the resident’s neighbour was also experiencing damp issues and the landlord had raised the issues with the developer. It is accepted that the damp issues may have fell under the developer’s defect period. However, the resident’s tenancy was with the landlord and it remained the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the defects were appropriately rectified.
  7. During the defect period the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to liaise with the developer and the resident, in order to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and completed to a satisfactory standard. There was little evidence of oversight by the landlord. This was evidenced in its stage 2 complaint response, when it noted that it was unable to investigate what action was taken by the developer to address the damp due to them being a third-party contractor. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have detailed contact notes and should have proactively pursued the developer to ensure that it was meeting its obligations to the resident. Its failure to do so was inappropriate.
  8. On 23 December 2022, after a further report of damp and mould, an internal email from the landlord notes that in order to pursue a latent defect it needs to first survey the property to ensure the issue was with the building and not the resident’s “lifestyle”. The landlord surveyed the property on 6 January 2023. This was the first survey of the property since the resident reported the damp 15 months previously. This was a significant delay. The landlord found a number of potential issues with the building and instructed a damp survey.
  9. On 31 January 2023, an independent damp survey found that the cause of damage in the property was due to water ingress. It noted that the air bricks outside the property were below ground level which allowed moisture to ingress into the property. It also found that it was reasonable to assume that there was moisture in the sub floor of the property which needed to be investigated. It concluded that the moisture within the property was due to construction issues.
  10. Based on the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord took no action on the findings of this survey until after the resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2023. Thereafter, it met with the developer at the property on 9 June 2023 to agree what repairs it accepted responsibility for as part of the defects period. This was a further unreasonable delay by the landlord.
  11. Based on the landlord’s records, it is unclear what actions the developer took to address the structural issues identified in the property. The landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey on 21 August 2023. It identified several areas of mould in the property, including “mould in wall corner by cot in bedroom.” It found that the mould was not a risk to the resident’s health and recommended mould cleans and advice on ventilation. It is not clear if the landlord followed up on these recommendations before the resident moved on 1 October 2023.
  12. While it is recognised that the landlord found that the mould was not a risk to health, this was not known or identified until 21 August 2023, 22 months after she first reported mould. It is not clear if the landlord provided this finding to the resident. In any case, the resident reported distress because of the issue and was concerned for the health of her household including her newborn baby. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was inappropriate and it failed to consider the distress caused to the resident.
  13. It is acknowledged that since the complaint, the landlord introduced a damp and mould policy in May 2024. This policy states that it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and sets out a 4-step approach to identify, remedy, resolve, and prevent damp and mould. Remedies include mould washes and providing a dehumidifier while it resolved the issue. These actions would have lessened the impact on the resident had the policy been in place at the time and implemented by the landlord.
  14. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. This is because it unreasonably delayed in surveying the issue to identify the cause and put things right. It failed to demonstrate that it proactively engaged with the developer to ensure it met its obligations to the resident under the tenancy, and failed to demonstrate it considered its responsibilities under HHSRS. The landlord failed to take any remedial or mitigation actions to offset the impacts of the damp and mould while the outcome of its investigation were awaited.
  15. It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged some failings and offered redress. In its stage 1 complaint response it offered £300 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to address damp and mould. However, the offer of redress did not put things right and was not sufficient in the circumstances. The resident reported concerns for her health while she was pregnant and concerns for her newborn because of mould in her home. She reported continually cleaning mould and applying anti mould paint to affected areas.
  16. The landlord’s failings caused significant distress to the resident which was not considered in the landlord’s compensation offer. An order of a further £1,200 compensation has been made to reflect the distress caused to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. When assessing compensation, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s circumstances and the considerable delay in responding to the issue.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. It is not disputed that there were complaint handling failures. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the complaint at both stages of the complaint and apologised. It offered £350 for the delay in providing a complaint response, inconvenience, time and trouble, and lack of communication.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes it clear that landlords should make it easy for residents to complain and should not obstruct access to the complaint’s procedure. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have progressed the complaint through its complaint process but for the Ombudsman’s intervention to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  4. The landlord acknowledged this failing and committed to learning from the failing. An order has been made below for the landlord to carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case to identify learning and implement improvements if appropriate.
  5. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Code sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
  6. While the landlord’s complaint investigation identified failings in its handling of the reports of damp and mould, it failed to recognise the considerable delay in it surveying the issue and failed to address the resident’s circumstances. As such, it failed to offer appropriate compensation to reflect the service failures.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. While it acknowledged some failings in respect of its complaint handling and provided compensation for those failings, it failed to effectively use the complaints process to address the substantive issues for the resident and offer appropriate compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that a senior director of the landlord apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident further compensation of £1,200 for the distress caused by its failures in responding to reports of damp and mould.
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case to identify and implement actions it can take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified in this investigation.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations 

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £350 that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the complaint handling failures.