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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202327487)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327487

Sanctuary Housing Association (formerly Johnnie Johnson Housing Trust Limited)

31 January 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. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a one bedroom flat, where she has lived since 1999. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 2 August 2023, in which she said:
    1. She had 5 thermo-hygrometers in the property, which consistently measured relative humidity at between 75% and 85% all year round. The high humidity in the property was causing damp and mould.
    2. Her clothing and some items of furniture were frequently damp because of the problem. She had rashes from wearing damp clothes and she had to throw away a mattress due to mould.
    3. She frequently opened windows, which slightly reduced humidity. However, the humidity remained high with the windows open and then returned to the even higher levels as soon as the windows were closed.
    4. She felt there were structural issues with the property causing the high humidity, and she wanted the landlord to investigate and fix the issues urgently.
  3. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 22 August 2023. It said:
    1. It had discussed the complaint with her over the telephone on 9 August 2023 and completed a property inspection on 10 August 2023.
    2. It had ordered the following works at the property:
      1. Renew the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. An appointment was booked on 24 August 2023 to complete this.
      2. Supply and fit a 1kW ceramic electric panel heater to the front entrance. This would be completed during the appointment on 24 August 2023.
      3. Renew the radiators in the bedroom and living room with larger convector radiators.
    3. Its cavity wall inspection had revealed there was insulation present, which was in accordance with the relevant building regulations.
    4. Once all the works were completed, it would inspect the property again to determine the effectiveness of the measures.
  4. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 13 September 2023, in which she requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said:
    1. The 2 fans installed by the landlord had not made a significant difference to the humidity in the property.
    2. The humidity was causing several problems including significant mould growth, poor air quality, skin rashes, and a stagnant smell of damp in the property. She was also unable to lay carpet as the floors were damaged by damp and needed replacement.
    3. She wanted the landlord to hire a qualified damp surveyor to inspect the property and provide recommendations to resolve any building defects causing the problem.
  5. The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 September 2023. It subsequently sent another acknowledgement of the complaint on 3 October 2023, in which it outlined the full details of the complaint as discussed during a telephone call on 29 September 2023.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. It said:
    1. An independent survey of the property had been completed on 7 October 2023, and the landlord had shared the report with the resident. The resident had expressed concern about the validity of this report, particularly because it had been conducted when the heating was on a constant temperature in the property. The landlord agreed the heating had been on, but that this had been on the advice of the independent specialists.
    2. It had been contacted by environmental health during its investigation, which had agreed with its plan to install a further PIV unit and humidity sensors in the home. It had also agreed to share the findings of the sensors with environmental health so they could work collaboratively. It was agreed that, once the resident returned home, environmental health could support her with further inspections, if necessary, and report any findings to the landlord if needed.
    3. The resident had declined the landlord’s request to fit humidity sensors in the property and had told it she had commissioned her own independent damp and mould survey at a cost of £325. The landlord was disappointed the resident had felt the need to do this and would refund her the cost for this. It would address all the recommendations in the report and would update her every 2 weeks with its progress on the works.
    4. It apologised for the delay in sending the stage 2 response, which was caused by the need to complete independent surveys and monitor the damp and mould within the property. It offered £150 for the delay.
    5. Under its compensation policy, the resident was eligible for £150 for the disturbance caused by her temporary move to another property, and a further £150 payment once she returned home. It would also provide a further discretionary payment of £150 and a refund of any energy costs for the property during the period of the move once this could be calculated. Additionally, it would provide £400 for her distress and inconvenience. The total compensation it offered was therefore £1,325 (including £325 reimbursement for the resident’s independent survey), plus the energy expenses for the property during the move, which it would calculate once the move was over.
    6. The resident could bring the complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident duly made her complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 October 2024. She requests that the landlord replaces all floors throughout the property. She also wants the landlord to replace her bathroom entirely, including the drywall and flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she wants the landlord to entirely replace and rebuild her bathroom, including the drywall. We have seen no evidence to support that this was recommended in any surveys carried out for her complaint, nor have we seen evidence that the resident has made this specific request to the landlord as part of her complaint.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The evidence does not support that the resident has completed the landlord’s complaints procedure regarding her specific concerns about the bathroom, and this was not highlighted in any of the surveys during the course of this complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman is currently unable to require the landlord to complete this work as requested by the resident. The resident would first need to raise a new complaint specifically about her bathroom and give the landlord a chance to investigate this under its own complaints procedure.

Damp and mould

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. Damp and mould are included as hazards under the HHSRS. Some of the preventative measures outlined in the HHSRS include:
    1. Properly ventilated roof and under floor spaces to ensure timber remains air dry.
    2. Adequate extraction of moisture laden air during peak times, like cooking, bathing and laundry.
    3. Continuous low-level background ventilation where necessary.
  2. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord is obliged to make sure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards.
  3. The landlord took some immediate actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould outlined in her letter dated 1 August 2023. It sent an internal surveyor on 10 August 2023, and following this it completed several jobs, including fitting a new ceramic electric panel heating to the front entrance, replacing the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans, and completing a mould wash. These were reasonable jobs that would ordinarily help with damp and mould.
  4. After the resident advised these measures had not helped, the landlord arranged for her to be placed in temporary accommodation and hired an independent damp and mould surveyor. The Ombudsman notes the resident was unhappy that the landlord put the heating on at 21 degrees Celsius while she was moved and the survey took place. The World Health Organisation and Energy Saving Trust suggest homes should be heated between 18 and 21 degrees for ideal health benefits. If homes are colder than this, increased humidity and mould growth are risks. This meant it was not unreasonable to put the heating on during the survey, as this would have measured the effectiveness of the property during an ideal temperature.
  5. It is clear that the resident’s independent surveyor noted several problems with the property which were not included in the report of the independent surveyor hired by the landlord. This does not mean the landlord was at fault for hiring its own independent surveyor who came to a different conclusion, and it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had acted reasonably up to this point in line with its obligations. This is because it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its own surveyor’s expert evidence until there was other expert evidence to the contrary from the resident’s surveyor. There is also no evidence that the landlord acted incorrectly in hiring its surveyor.
  6. Following the resident’s decision to hire her own independent surveyor, the landlord agreed to complete all of their recommended works. The resident sent her surveyor’s report to the landlord between 12 December 2023 and 18 December 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to take on these works in the circumstances, and to cover the cost for the survey, given it was using the information in the report. The landlord completed the works between 18 December 2023 and 24 April 2024, while the resident remained in the other temporary property. However, it did not replace all the air bricks in the property with larger ones, as recommended in the report. Instead, it only replaced half of these. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to replace the remaining air bricks recommended in the report.
  7. The landlord says it checked the subfloors throughout the property for signs of damp and mould, as per the resident’s surveyor’s recommendations, but found no signs of damp or mould. The resident has disputed this and sent the Ombudsman photographs of her subfloors, which she says show signs of damp. It is not possible for us to accurately assess the presence of damp from the photographs provided by the resident, as an inspection would be required for this. Given the resident’s further concerns, and as the issue is the same as previously complained about, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to complete a further survey of the property to check all subfloors for signs of damp or mould and carry out any works found to be necessary for this.
  8. Following her own initial independent survey, the resident authorised her damp and mould expert to complete further investigations, including a cavity wall inspection and indoor air quality tests. We have seen evidence to show the landlord was in discussion with the resident’s expert about the cavity wall inspection and agreed for this to go ahead. As such, it is reasonable for the landlord to refund the resident for the £370 cost of this. We have seen no evidence the resident consulted the landlord or asked permission before authorising the other tests. However, we have recommended that it survey her bathroom to investigate her concerns about the drywall to try and resolve these with her.
  9. Although it agreed for the cavity wall inspection to go ahead, and it received a copy of the report on 21 May 2024 that included recommendations for works, we have seen no evidence the landlord has completed any of the works. This is a service failure and falls short of the landlord’s obligations. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to carry out the works recommended in the report.
  10. Due to the failure to replace all air bricks in the property as recommended in the resident’s own independent survey, and the failure to complete any of the works recommended in the subsequent cavity wall inspection, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We have therefore ordered it to apologise to and pay her the £1,325 compensation agreed in its stage 2 response, if it has not already paid this, plus £300 further compensation for the additional failures identified by this report. This is within the range of compensation recommended by our remedies guidance for such failures that have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. In its stage 2 acknowledgement dated 21 September 2023, the landlord said it would contact the resident within 2 working days to discuss the complaint. However, it did not do this until 29 September 2023, which was 6 working days later.
  2. The landlord did not tell the resident in its stage 2 acknowledgement how long it would take to issue a stage 2 response. Section 5.3 of its complaint procedure says the landlord should issue this within 15 working days of the resident’s request for a review. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023, which was 68 working days after the resident’s request for this on 13 September 2023. This was a significant delay, and the landlord may have taken longer to respond had the Ombudsman not sent it a chaser on behalf of the resident on 12 December 2023.
  3. The landlord explained its stage 2 response was delayed because of the need to complete independent surveys and to monitor the damp and mould in the property. This reason for the delay was not compliant with section 5.5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time, which said that a complaint response must be sent “when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.” The landlord could have sent its stage 2 response within the appropriate timescale and told the resident it would continue to update her on the progress of any ongoing surveys and monitoring. This would have been in line with the guidance provided under the Code.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £150 for the delayed response. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a fair and reasonable offer to address the delay, and this is in line with what we would have provided had the landlord not offered this. This is because our remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 for such failures that have adversely affected the resident. As such, we find that there has been reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. It is ordered that:
    1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
    2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a total compensation payment of £1,995. This is made up of:
      1. The compensation of £1,325 agreed in the stage 2 decision (if the landlord has already provided this, it does not need to do so again).
      2. £370 reimbursement for the cavity wall investigations completed in April 2024.
      3. £300 for the additional failures identified in relation to damp and mould.
    3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment to cover the energy charges at the property during the period of the move, as promised in its stage 2 response (if the landlord has already provided this, it does not need to do so again).
    4. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord replaces the remaining air bricks not previously replaced with new 9×6 air bricks.
    5. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord inspects all subfloors in the property for any signs of damp or mould.
    6. Should the landlord find signs of damp and mould in the subfloors, it completes a schedule of works and executes this within 16 weeks of the date of this report.
    7. Within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord produces and executes a schedule of works for the recommendations included in the cavity wall inspection, namely:
      1. Removal of cavity wall insulation.
      2. Clear the cavity of all rubble and debris.
      3. Professional water damage restoration company to dry property adequately, giving certification that the property is dry.
      4. Cavity ventilated to upper and lower sections to promote air flow within the cavity void and prevent a build-up of moisture, before being refilled with insulation. Consideration to using a more natural, sustainable insulation product, which is breathable and water-resistant.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a survey of the bathroom to investigate the resident’s concerns about the drywall.