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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202326314)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326314

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 July 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, since 2013. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident complained on 4 October 2023, saying she had asthma and her bathroom was full of mould. She said she had been told a surveyor would attend a few months earlier but this did not happen. She said her son could not have friends round as their living conditions were embarrassing. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and said it would arrange a survey. There is no evidence it did or that it responded to the complaint.
  3. The resident sought our help in November 2023 and April 2024, but no action was taken by us to progress the complaint. On 5 December 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she had reported mould nearly 2 years earlier, both her and her son had been poorly, and her bathroom furniture was ruined by the mould.
  4. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 11 December 2024 and raised repairs. Its stage 1 response of 18 December 2024 acknowledged previous reports of damp and mould and that it had failed to carry out a follow up appointment in March 2024. It intended to upgrade the bathroom extractor fan and apply a mould wash. It upheld the complaint and said it would review the issue in 6 months to confirm if there was ongoing damp and mould issues. It offered £100 for inconvenience.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 January 2025. The landlord applied a mould wash and stain block on 21 January 2025. It confirmed this in its stage 2 response of 23 January 2025 and said the extractor fan would be replaced on 27 January 2025. Again, it agreed to arrange a post-inspection visit. It offered a further £150 to replace bathroom furniture.
  6. The extractor fan was replaced on 27 January 2025. However, the resident told us she was unhappy with the fan’s performance and the quality of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord was acquired by a new housing association on 31 January 2025. We have referenced the previous landlord’s policies in this assessment. The damp and mould policy said the landlord would diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective way. It should regularly communicate planned actions and treat reports as standard repairs and respond within 14 days.
  2. The resident has provided a copy of her initial complaint of October 2023, with evidence that the landlord received it. We do not know if the resident reported damp and mould as a repair request at that time.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy said it would apply a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Therefore, once it was put on notice of the resident’s concerns in at least October 2023, it should have been more pro-active. It should have arranged an inspection based on the information provided in the complaint. There is no evidence it did and this was a service failure.
  4. Its stage 1 response following the further complaint of December 2024 acknowledged a failure in service as it did not carry out a follow up inspection in March 2024. Its damp and mould policy says it will carry out follow up checks for any outstanding issues 6 months after any repairs are completed. This suggests the landlord carried out work in around September 2023 but no record of this has been provided. This also contradicts the resident’s report of October 2023 that she had been expecting a survey in July or August 2023 but this had not happened.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s repair records either lack detail or are missing. It has been unable to locate a copy of the resident’s complaint of October 2023 and has not provided any records relating to reports or repairs of damp and mould either before or after this, until the subsequent complaint of December 2024.
  6. We do not know if the lack of information is due to the merger or insufficient record keeping by the previous landlord. Regardless, the lack of relevant records is another service failure. It is positive that the current landlord has provided some records. It told us that the details of residents who had transferred from the legacy landlord were included on its systems from 1 February 2025. However, it was still in the process of migrating documents and systems as of 6 June 2025.
  7. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says that a merger or other structural change is an opportunity to carry out due diligence on systems, their compatibility and carry out a risk assessment. It highlights how record keeping failures can be avoided by identifying any potential issues accessing information and preparing action plans to address them long before a planned structural change happens, and not subsequently.
  8. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess what action the landlord took to remedy the damp and mould, if any. However, the landlord has provided photographs of an unrelated bath leak repair completed in August 2024. One of these appears to show the presence of mould on the bathroom ceiling above the shower. In the absence of any other evidence documenting the presence of mould in the bathroom, it is noted that this image does not show a significant amount of mould or indicate a wider problem.
  9. However, the landlord should still have responded to the reports and there is no evidence it inspected or treated this until 11 December 2024. Again, we have not been provided with a record of this inspection.
  10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy aimed to carry out inspections within 7 working days for customers with a respiratory condition. While it is positive that the landlord arranged the inspection within 4 working days of the complaint of 5 December 2024, the resident had first complained about this in October 2023 (304 working days earlier) and told the landlord she had asthma. The inspection was significantly outside the target response time and this amounts to maladministration.
  11. Further, the landlord did not complete the identified repairs until 27 January 2025, 482 days after the resident’s complaint. Again, this was significantly outside the 14-day period to carry out such repairs and was maladministration.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed for awards for damaged personal items if it was responsible for the loss. It is positive that it awarded £150 to replace bathroom furniture. It is also positive that it offered a post–inspection. However, the landlord has since told us that this did not take place, resulting in a further failure in service. The resident has told us she is unhappy with the repairs, so we order the landlord to inspect the property and agree a schedule of works with completion timeframes.
  13. The £100 compensation awarded for the missed follow up inspection, did not offer proportionate remedy for the maladministration identified in this report. Despite the resident highlighting that she had been living with mould for an extended period, the landlord did not acknowledge any delay in addressing it. This was a failure in service and further remedy is required to put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
  14. The resident said that living with damp and mould affected the health of both her and her son. It is not our role to assess whether the landlord’s actions negatively affected their health. The resident could seek independent advice on this or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can affect the physical and mental health of residents. It is also accepted that those with respiratory conditions are more vulnerable to the impacts. This exacerbates the landlord’s failings and we have considered this in our remedy.
  15. The resident has also said the issue affected her mental health and her enjoyment of the property. While we accept that she did make multiple reports over an extended period, and that she experienced distress and inconvenience as a result, there is limited evidence of a significant mould problem in the property. There is nothing to suggest that the bathroom was unusable for any period. Further, the available evidence indicates that the resident did not pursue the issue with the landlord for 14 months between October 2023 and December 2024. These factors have also been taken into account when considering an appropriate remedy.
  16. Overall, we find that the landlord’s delays in communication and repairs, and its failure to effectively monitor its work warrant a compensation payment of £350 (inclusive of the £100 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has attempted to put things right but failed to address the detriment caused.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 2 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days of the complaint being received. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the complaint of 4 October 2023, in line with its policy. However, it failed to provide a formal stage 1 response. This meant the repairs identified in the complaint were not progressed. This was in breach of the landlord’s complaint policy and a failure of our Complaint Handling Code. This amounts to maladministration and meant the resident spent additional time and trouble progressing her complaint over an unreasonable amount of time.
  2. In the absence of a response from the landlord, the resident sought our assistance. Unfortunately, her case was not progressed due to an administrative oversight. As no contact was made with the landlord at this time, it cannot be held responsible for the continued delays. The resident could still have contacted it directly to pursue her complaint between October 2023 and December 2024. 
  3. It is positive that the landlord dealt with the subsequent complaint of 5 December 2024 in line with its complaint policy. It also dealt with the stage 2 appropriately and in accordance with its complaint policy (which said it must respond within 15 working days of the complaint being escalated).
  4. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the initial complaint. Nor did it acknowledge the time and trouble caused to the resident because of this. Again, further remedy is needed to put things right. We order the landlord to apologise for its complaint handling failures and pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of them. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge this and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s: 
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £450 compensation for distress and inconvenience as follows:
      1. £350 for its handling of the damp and mould (inclusive of the £100 already awarded).
      2. £100 for its handling of the formal complaint.
    3. Inspected the work carried out in January 2025 and produced a schedule of work for any recommended repairs. Any work identified should be scheduled to start within 4 weeks of the inspection. A copy of the schedule should be shared with both us and the resident.