Sanctuary Housing Association (202341321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341321

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
4. The level of compensation offered by the landlord and its decision not to refund rent.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident has held the tenancy since September 2023. He lives there with his wife and child, who was under the age of 1 at the time of the complaint.
A damp survey took place at the property on 8 March 2023, before the resident’s tenancy had started. This found that the roof was in poor condition as the felt membrane had degraded, and a previous repair only covered a small section of the roof. It noted that damp and mould was present in the bedroom. The surveyor confirmed that the damp and mould was not caused by tenant usage. Recommended works included a roof survey, loft survey, new facia and guttering and a fungicidal wash to internal walls.
The resident viewed the property with the landlord on 13 September 2023. Following this the landlord contacted its roofing contractors to confirm that repairs which had been identified in the survey on 8 March 2023 had been completed. The contractor confirmed on 15 September 2023 that all works had been completed to the roof “weeks ago”. The property was signed off by the landlord as being in lettable standard, and the resident’s tenancy began on 18 September 2023.
On 30 September 2023 the resident reported that he had discovered a large patch of mould in the larger bedroom and wallpaper was peeling off. The landlord’s records show that on 2 October 2023 it contacted its repairs team to ask that an operative visit the property to resolve the issue and reassure the resident. The repair log states that it attended on 9 October 2023.
The resident requested that the landlord attend again on 16 October 2023, as he stated he was unable to move in until the mould issue was resolved. An internal assessment took place on the same day, and a job was raised to complete a range of works, including the following:
1. Apply fungicidal wash in bedroom.
2. Prepare surfaces and wash down with sterilising solution
3. Prepare and apply one coat mould eradication solution to walls or ceilings in accordance with manufacturers data sheet,
4. Apply 2 coats of mould preventing paint.
5. Relay insulation to loft area and move and replace contents in loft in order to undertake inspection.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 November 2023 a job was raised for a roof repair. On the same day the resident stated to the landlord that he was unable to move into the property until repairs were done, and he was also paying rent at another property as a result and wanted compensation. The landlord advised that he would need to submit a formal complaint.
On 4 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint. In the complaint he said:
1. When decorating prior to moving in, he discovered a large patch of black mould in the front bedroom. Repairs attended and removed it and said it was due to the house being empty and not ventilated.
2. He then discovered mould in the living room under wallpaper around the window frame. The sealant was also mouldy and the frames were “loose”. There was also mould on the curtain pole batten, and on the ceiling in the front bedroom.
3. He went into the loft to see if there was a leak and found that the waterproof lining was compromised and wooden panels had fallen away.
4. The family were unable to complete decorating and were unable to move in.
5. He was unhappy that the house was found to be suitable to move into, and that he had paid 3 months’ rent on a property he was unable to use.
The resident sent a follow up email on 10 December 2023 to chase the repair works and his complaint. He said that he was unable to move in, was paying rent at 2 properties and felt that he should not have to make the rent payments while he believed that the property was not habitable.
The repairs log states that on 11 December 2023 there was an appointment scheduled for repairs to windows, however it says there was no access. The note also states that the landlord was aware the resident was not living in the property. The following day it listed “stage 3 mould works” as being completed, and a follow up job for the windows was raised on 15 December 2023.
The landlord issued the resident with a complaint holding letter on 22 December 2023. It said that, while it had hoped that it would have been able to provide a complaint response that day, it aimed to respond no later than 10 January 2024.
On 27 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. It was aware that the resident was not residing in the property and also had to pay rent at the property they were living in.
2. It had attended the property on 8 October 2023 and completed mould treatments. It said it had also attended a subsequent report of mould and completed treatment work.
3. When the resident reported the roof leak on 16 November 2023, he stated that the leak was containable, and this repair was scheduled for 8 February 2024.
4. It understood that the resident had concerns about the state of the property and was seeking financial assistance as he was paying rent twice. It could not find any service failures, and it was still within reasonable time to repair the roof. It stated that it would arrange for a surveyor to assess habitability of the address and signposted the resident to financial support services.
The resident responded the same day to say that he did not know why the complaint was closed when no one had assessed the property and requested escalation to stage 2. Acknowledgment of the stage 2 request was sent to the resident on 28 December 2023.
On 2 January 2024 the landlord attempted to attend the property to carry out repairs to the windows. This was logged as a no access appointment and rebooked for 19 February 2024. The landlord issued a complaint hold letter to the resident on 23 January 2024, advising that the stage 2 response would not be issued until 5 February 2024. The resident responded to say that he was unhappy with this delay, and was unhappy with the window contractor attending without notice on 2 January 2024. He said he had asked to be called before any appointments to allow him time to get to the property and this had not happened. He also reported that he felt the contractor to be rude when speaking to him on the phone.
An inspection request was raised by the landlord on 24 January 2024 to assess the property following the reports of damp and mould. The resident chased the landlord for updates on repairs and his complaint throughout February and March, and was informed that it would be the beginning of April when he would receive a formal response. On 19 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord by email and advised:
1. When he checked the attic, a section of the roof was degraded and roof tiles were able to be touched from inside.
2. A contractor attended to assess the roof and found the same thing, he also stated that foam insulation on the attic floor was not fitted properly. This had caused moisture to travel through the insulation, through the cavity and cause the mould in the bedroom.
3. The contractor told him that someone had appeared to have tried to fill in the hole in the roof with expanding foam.
4. The resident felt that either the landlord had not inspected the roof properly, or it was aware and let the property regardless of the impact on the resident and his family.
Internal records from 21 March 2024 state that based on photographs of the loft, a “god awful” roof repair had been carried out, and it was recommended that a drone inspection take place on the roof, including the guttering. On 25 March 2024, internal communications took place between the landlord and a contractor which stated the following:
1. The contractor was unsure why this was being chased as the property was unoccupied.
2. The mould was the result of the property being unoccupied and not heated.
3. When signing the tenancy, the resident became responsible for managing the property in a reasonable manner.
Throughout April 2024, a number of notes indicate that inspections were requested to check the roof however a number of dates for completion were referenced. It is not clear to this Service when an inspection took place. On 25 April 2024 an operative further stated that the mould had been caused by the house being unoccupied and not heated. The same day, the resident confirmed to the landlord that he had moved into the property as they were unable to remain in the alternative accommodation.
The stage 2 response was issued on 9 May 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay with the response, and also expressed disappointment that works which had been promised at stage 1 had not been completed. It found that there had been service failures with its complaints handling. Regarding repairs it stated:
1. An external damp inspector had attended on 11 December 2023 however it could not locate any report, nor could it find any evidence that a surveyor visited in January 2024 to assess habitability. However, it stated that “Due to the length of time that has passed we would be unable to fully investigate the service failings at this stage and I can only apologise for the lack of ownership and the significant delays.”
2. An inspection was carried out on 30 April 2024 where it was recommended that another mould wash be completed in the front bedroom and the quote for the roof works should be expedited. The roof works were being chased, and it had scheduled the mould wash for 14 May 2024.
3. It stated that this was not a level of service it expected to be delivered and this would be fed back at the next regional contractor meeting.
4. The resident had paid rent until January 2024, as he felt he should not have to pay for the property in its condition. It was unable to establish whether the property was uninhabitable however it agreed to clear the rent arrears to 25 April 2024. It had also provided 2 paint packs as a contribution towards redecoration.
5. It was aware that the resident had requested to be rehoused however the property had not been deemed uninhabitable, and works were being tracked and monitored to ensure completion. It could not locate any reports that the property was uninhabitable, and this was the reason that the family were not decanted.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint and stated that, while it understood the resident was concerned about the cost of bills and council tax, he remained liable for these.
7. The landlord awarded compensation of £1250 as a goodwill gesture, broken down as:
  1. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience owing to the number of contractor visits, time spent by the resident chasing the landlord, lack of action and length of time taken to complete damp works.
  2. £400 for complaint handling failures as a result of the lack of communication and delays with formal responses
  3. £250 for the future impact of repairs.
On 11 May 2024 the resident confirmed that he accepted the goodwill gesture. On the same day, the landlord’s internal records confirmed that it had cleared arrears until 28 April 2024 to the amount of £2050.80. It did not refund the first 4 months’ rent as it took the view that rent would have been liable even if the property was deemed uninhabitable and the family had been decanted. On 23 May 2024 the landlord visited the resident who confirmed that while they were happy to remain in the property, they were still unable to use one of the bedrooms due to the damp and mould.
A quote for the roof works was approved on 30 May 2024 with a target completion date of 29 July 2024. The contractor stated that they would recommend a re-roof, however sent over a minimum works quotation which included:
1. Replacement tiles, felt and battens
2. Replacement eaves trays
3. Insulation to be installed in the eaves
4. Repointing of ridge tiles
5. Clean gutters to front and rear of property.
All repairs to the roof were completed on 25 July 2024 however the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions and has made a complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is obliged to maintain and keep in good working order the structure and outside of the property, outside doors, window frames and sills, drains, gutters, external pipes, internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, doors, door frames and door jambs and it shall carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord is obliged to keep the property free from mould and damp and fit for human habitation as per the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘the Homes Act 2018). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act 2018 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Under the repair policy:
1. The landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours (attend and make safe) and in a second follow up appointment for remedial works.
2. Appointed repairs will be responded to within 28 days.
3. In unforeseen circumstances, such as those where a specialist contractor is required, the landlord must keep the resident informed and provide updates of when the work will be completed.
4. For damage caused to the resident’s items by the landlord, this will be investigated as a complaint.
The landlord raised jobs for inspections of the property on several occasions, however it admitted in its complaint responses that it did not have any paperwork to demonstrate the outcome of these inspections. It maintained that it did not decant the family as the property was not uninhabitable, however it is not clear how it came to that conclusion given the lack of evidence that the property was assessed.
In photographs taken by the landlord on 5 September 2023, there is no visible damp or mould. It is understandable that the void inspector may not have suspected any issues were ongoing. However, once the mould was discovered by the resident it should have investigated the cause, particularly as it believed that the previous issues had been remedied.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlighted that, in many cases, landlords were apportioning blame for damp and mould onto residents and citing their lifestyle as being responsible. There is evidence that in this case contractors were dismissive of the resident’s reports and stated that the mould had been caused by the resident leaving the property empty and failing to leave heating on. Another contractor stated that the removal of wallpaper and lack of subsequent heating was the cause.
Positively, the landlord itself did not rely solely on these opinions and continued to chase the inspection of the roof. However, it is responsible for the actions or inaction of its contractors as they are providing a service on its behalf. The landlord should ensure that it holds its contractors and subcontractors to the same values and expectations as it has for its own staff regarding removing the blame culture associated with damp and mould.
Based on the evidence provided, the Ombudsman cannot say with any certainty whether the property was habitable between September 2023 and June 2024 when the roof was repaired. While there is evidence that mould washes took place, this Service cannot confirm the extent of the mould or how often it reoccurred. It is clear to the Ombudsman that the resident felt that the property was not safe for his family to move into, particularly given the age of his child at that time. However, without confirmation that the property was not habitable, this Service cannot say with certainty as to whether the family should have been formally decanted. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Ombudsman to order that compensation be offered for unavailability of the property.
While the landlord treated mould when it was reported, the search for the cause of the mould took longer than it should have. While many delays were a result of the contractor failing to complete a survey, the landlord has a duty to manage its contractors and meet its responsibilities under the tenancy. There is evidence that the landlord chased the contractor regularly, but it did not consider utilising an alternative contractor. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action against the contractor for its lack of communication, the delays with the survey, or that any action was taken regarding the roof repairs which were done incorrectly prior to the resident moving in.
The Ombudsman finds that there was overall service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, namely in its investigations into the causes. Additionally, it should have challenged its contractor when it was proposed that the resident was responsible for the damp and mould by his absence in the property, particularly as there was evidence to the contrary. In its communication with the resident the landlord did not fully discuss or apologise for the practical impact on the resident of:
1. Not being given notice for appointments given the resident worked nights.
2. The fact the resident and his partner had recently had their first child. This can be stressful under normal circumstances, however given the family felt they could not move into their home and were living with relatives, this is likely to have negatively impacted their daily life.
It is positive, however, that the landlord provided financial compensation above its guideline figure in recognition of the inconvenience and stress experienced by the resident.

Roof repairs

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it will “provide service users with adequate, clear and easily understood information.” This includes anticipated response times for repairs, proactive communication for all repairs and the repairing obligations of both parties. The landlord categorises ‘appointed repairs’ as “all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required.” It will agree an appointment with the service user during the first point of contact where possible. It will complete all appointed repairs within 28 days at the appointment originally agreed.
Issues were identified with the roof on 8 March 2023 when it was discovered that the roof felt was degraded. The resident also reported in October 2023 that he had been into the loft and could see daylight through the roof. The landlord ordered a new survey of the roof, however this did not take place until 25 April 2024.
There is evidence that the landlord chased its contractor for a survey to be conducted, and that delays could be attributed to a lack of communication from the contractor. This had an effect on many aspects of this case, and there is no evidence that the landlord has fed this back to the contractor or requested an explanation for the delays. At the time the resident was due to move into the property, the contractor had stated that the roof had been repaired “months ago” but, given that the issues had recurred in the same place, the landlord should have instructed the contractor to reattend or requested an alternative contractor provide a second opinion on the roof.
When it became evident that contractor delays were causing unreasonable delays with the roof inspection being completed, the landlord should have considered whether an alternative roofing contractor should have been appointed.
A copy of the drone survey from April 2024 has been provided to the Ombudsman. It is clear from this survey that the roof was in poor condition, and it is likely that this had been ongoing since before the resident’s tenancy began. There is no record of the work identified in March 2023 being completed, which indicates a failure in record keeping.
Internal records provided by the landlord show that there was some confusion between departments on what work had been done while the property was void and on what date. The communication issues between the landlord and contractor also led to the resident not being contacted in advance of attendance on several occasions. The resident had made it clear to the landlord that he was not residing in the property and he worked shifts and needed advance notice of appointments. On several occasions he was contacted by contractors while on site, and therefore the appointments were logged as failed due to a lack of access. It is unclear from the evidence whether this was a result of the landlord not communicating the resident’s requirements with the contractor, or the contractor not following the instructions of the landlord. Regardless, this impacted on the resident and led to additional inconvenience and further delays.
While the level of compensation offered to the resident was above the guidelines in its policy, in the Ombudsman’s opinion more could have been done by the landlord to ensure the same situation could not happen again. There is no evidence of the issues with the roof and delays with the survey being fed back to the contractors. The Ombudsman expects that, while the landlord is not responsible for all of a contractors’ actions, it has a duty to take action when there are service failures at times when the contractor is representing the landlord.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs. While it did appoint a contractor to complete a survey it did not manage the contractor effectively, leading to substantial delay. Additionally, there is no evidence that the roof repairs were completed to a satisfactory level prior to the signing of the tenancy agreement as a result of the landlord’s record keeping. The resident had asked for confirmation of the works being completed and was assured that they had been done. His frustration with the situation was understandable in the circumstances. While the compensation offered was positive and went some way to redress, it did not fully represent the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and his family.
A wider order was issued by the Ombudsman in February 2024 for the landlord to review how it records repairs, communications with contractors, and all communication with residents. The order specified that in doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. This review was completed in April 2024 and the landlord committed to a number of improvements including a new case management system, repairs management system and regular performance meetings with contractors. As this review was completed around the same time as the investigation period in this case, no new orders will be made in this report.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It promises to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The policy specifies that residents should request escalation to stage 2 within 10 working days. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. If the landlord feels a sufficiently detailed response cannot be provided within the timescale, its policy allows for the time frame to be extended by 10 working days. It states that it will explain the reasons for the extension if this is required.
The landlord determined that at stage 1 there was no evidence of service failures and no compensation was offered to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not a reasonable conclusion as there was evidence that there had been concerns about the roof before the resident moved in and there was no documentary evidence that the void works to the roof had been completed to reasonable standard. Although there had been some communications from a contractor which indicated that the issues had been resolved, the resident’s reports indicated that there were still damp issues in the property and that the roof was in poor condition.
When the landlord determined that it was not going to be able to meet the stage 2 deadline it contacted the resident to request an extension. However, it did not fully explain why it was unable to respond and what information it was waiting for. The resident was only made aware of subsequent extensions after he had chased the landlord for an update. The landlord should have been proactively managing the complaint and ensuring that the resident was fully informed of any delays, and the reasons for them.
In its stage 2 response the landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It also acknowledged that it had surpassed the deadlines in its policy at stage 1, although it did provide a response before the revised deadline which was within the 10-day extension period.
It offered £400 compensation for complaint handling, in acknowledgement of the number of times the resident had to chase a response, the extensions to response dates, and the lack of communication. This offer was above the higher threshold of £250 which is in the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord has informed this Service that since the resident’s complaint it has identified a number of areas for improvement with its processes:
1. Delivered complaints training to improve the customer journey throughout the complaint process.
2. It has implemented new teams to streamline the process when a complaint is received in addition to a new escalation process.
3. The introduction of a designated team to track and monitor repairs both at the beginning of the complaints process and during the complaint handling.
Taking into consideration the compensation offered to the resident and improvements identified by the landlord following this complaint, the Ombudsman finds that, while there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, it has provided reasonable redress which adequately resolves this part of the complaint.

Compensation

The landlord’s complaint policy states it can consider compensation where it has failed in its service. The compensation offered to the resident is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord relating to repairs, which had a significant long-term impact on the resident.
In the landlord’s policy, it may award up to £250 for poor complaint handling, and up to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience. It does not have a cap on repairs compensation, instead sets out a schedule of circumstances under which compensation would be payable i.e. loss of heating per day, temporary heating allowance per day and room loss allowance per week. It also may award decorating vouchers if it is deemed appropriate.
The landlord did not award any room loss allowance as the rooms had not formally been found to be unusable. However, even if it had awarded a room loss allowance, the amount of compensation given in this case (inclusive of the payment of rent arrears) is higher than the amount that the resident would have received under a room loss allowance. The landlord’s policy awards:
1. 10% of weekly rent for loss of a lounge/dining room
2. 20% of weekly rent for loss of a bedroom
3. If more than one room is not usable, the offer is increased to 50%. If only part of a room is not habitable then the percentage would be reduced.
From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the living room and bedroom were unusable, and how much mould was present in each room. However, for the purposes of assessing how reasonable the compensation awarded was, the following calculation has been used:
1. 30 September 2023 (date mould first reported) to 30 March 2024 – weekly rent of £118.49.
  1. 30% (10% for living room and 20% for bedroom) of this weekly figure amounts to £35.54 per week
  2. 26 weeks x £35.54 amounts to £924.04.
2. 1 April 2024 to 25 July 2024 (date roof repairs were completed) – weekly went of £127.61.
  1. 30% of this weekly figure amounts to £38.38 per week
  2. 16 weeks x 38.38 amounts to £609.28
3. Highest amount of compensation which could have been paid to the resident under the landlord’s policy therefore equates to £1533.32.
4. Throughout the complaints process, the landlord paid £2050.80 by clearing the resident’s arrears with a further £1250 paid as compensation for service failures, broken down into:
  1. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience
  2. £400 for complaint handling failures
  3. £250 for the future impact of repairs.
5. The compensation awarded by the landlord for all elements of the claim was above the higher cap in its policy. The landlord’s offer also complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It also provided 2 paint packs to assist the resident with redecoration once the mould was resolved.
The resident has stated to this Service that he feels that the landlord should have fully refunded him for the first 3 months rent he paid at the beginning of the tenancy as he was not able to live there. The property was not considered to be uninhabitable, and he had signed a legally binding contractual agreement, the tenancy, which meant that he was required to pay rent. On this basis, the landlord had no obligation to provide a full rent refund and acted reasonably by clearing arrears and offering compensation above its own guidelines.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the level of compensation offered by the landlord or its decision not to refund rent.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. and 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. No maladministration in the level of compensation offered by the landlord

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
  1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, and particularly the impact on the household throughout the period of displacement. The apology must come from a senior manager and a copy must be provided to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
  2. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in his communications with the contractors in relation to the roof repairs. This compensation is in addition to the compensation offered during the complaints process and should be paid directly to the resident.
  3. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience when communicating with contractors in relation to the damp and mould. This compensation is in addition to the compensation offered during the complaints process and should be paid directly to the resident.