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

Sanctuary Housing Association (202412654)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412654

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 March 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:
    1. Concerns about damp and mould within the property.
    2. Request to transfer to another property.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 2-bedroom third floor flat. He lives at the property with his wife and their 4 children. The resident’s wife and 1 of his children suffer with asthma, which the landlord was aware of.
  2. On 22 September 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had carried out a review of his request to transfer to another property. It confirmed that the resident’s application had been placed within its band B criteria. The resident was eligible to be on its waiting list from 4 April 2018 to transfer to one of its 5-bedroom properties.
  3. In October 2023 the resident submitted medical evidence to the landlord. This was in support of the resident’s request for the landlord to review its banding decision as part of his application to transfer to another property.
  4. In November 2023 the landlord reviewed the resident’s medical evidence and confirmed that it had moved the resident into its band A criteria within its waiting list from 4 April 2018, to transfer to a 5-bedroom property.
  5. Between January 2024 and March 2024 the resident chased the landlord for it to confirm when he would be transferred to a 5-bedrrom property.
  6. On 28 March 2024 the resident reported that there was damp and mould throughout the property.
  7. On 4 April 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his request to transfer to another property, as well as its handling of his report of damp and mould within the property.
  8. On 10 April the landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It confirmed that it would carry out treatment of the damp and mould within all of the affected areas within the property between 18 June 2024 and 19 June 2024.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2024. It confirmed it would complete the works to treat the damp and mould in the resident’s property as quickly as possible. The landlord then said it would provide a separate response about his request to transfer to another property.
  10. On the 22 April 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that he was on the highest banding available to transfer to another property. It explained that all of its current 4- and 5-bedroom properties were occupied. The landlord recommended that the resident could register with ‘Homeswapper’ and his local authority to increase the amount of 4 and 5–bedroom properties available to him. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested it escalate his complaint on 29 April 2024.
  11. On 7 June 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised that it had not fully addressed the resident’s concerns about his request to transfer to another property within its stage 1 complaint response. It awarded the resident £150 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  12. Between 18 June 2024 and 19 June 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould treatment of the affected rooms within the property which included the following:
    1. Both bedrooms
    2. Living room
    3. Bathroom

 

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He brought his complaint to the Ombudsman stating he had been on the landlord’s waiting list for 18 years, and that the damp and mould within the property had caused a significant impact on his health and the health of his family. He wanted the landlord to transfer him to a 5-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’
  3. Section 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This service has taken into consideration that the resident has said that he has been on the landlord’s waiting list to transfer to another property for 18 years. We accept this will have caused him frustration. However, in line with the Scheme we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property from 4 April 2023 through to the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint provided on 7 June 2024.
  4. As part of his complaint, the resident has said that his health, and the health of his family has been affected by the presence of damp and mould within his home. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his own, and his family’s health.

 The resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it identifies damp and mould within the property, and it is the resident’s first report, that it will arrange for a mould wash to be completed. Where the landlord identifies a repair, it will complete this in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following categories:
  3. Emergency repairs – The landlord states this is a repair where it is necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident. It will respond to this type of repair within 24 hours. The landlord may need to make a further appointment to complete all remedial works following its initial attendance which it will complete as an appointed repair.
  4. Appointed repairs – The landlord states these are all non-emergency repairs for which it requires access to a resident’s property. These repairs will be carried out by an agreed appointment with the resident. The landlord aims to complete these types of repairs within 28 days.
  5. On 28 March 2024 the resident reported that he had damp and mould throughout his property. The landlord raised a repair and carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in the resident’s property on 10 April 2024. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it needed to carry out an assessment to identify the works required to address the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
  6. The landlord arranged a schedule with the resident to carry out its treatment of the damp and mould in the resident’s property, as referred to above over 2 days between 18 June 2024 and 19 June 2024. This was 70 days after it inspected the resident’s property, and 83 days after the resident first raised the repair. It was appropriate that the landlord completed these works which included it carrying out a mould wash to the affected areas of the property. The landlord’s decision to carry out the mould wash was in line with its damp and mould policy as referred to above. However, we consider that the timescale in which the landlord completed these works was not reasonable. These works would have been considered an appointed repair in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. Therefore, it should have completed these works within 28 days as per its repairs policy.

 

 

  1. We also recognise that the delay in the landlord completing this repair caused distress to the resident. This was because he had advised the landlord that 2 out of the 6 members of his family living in the address, including a child, suffered with asthma. The landlord was aware of this. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered this during its delayed response to it carrying out these works to treat the damp and mould in the resident’s property. As referred to above these works should have been completed within 28 days in line with industry best practice and the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  3. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s request to transfer to another property.

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy states that when a resident wants to move to another property it will present them with information to allow them to make informed choices. The landlord assesses each resident’s application to transfer to one of its properties. It then prioritises the resident’s needs using its 3-tiered banding system; A, B, and C. Criteria for banding A includes where a resident requires a management transfer under exceptional circumstances, or where it considers the resident to have a critical housing case which can only be resolved by moving to alternative accommodation.
  2. The landlord’s allocations policy also states that when a property becomes available it will be offered to applicants from band A in order of the date of their banding. If it cannot find a band A applicant, it will then offer the property to those in band B, and then in band C.
  3. On 17 October 2023 the resident submitted his medical evidence to the landlord. This was in support of the resident’s request for the landlord to review his banding, as the resident had asked to be transferred to a 5-bedroom property. On 29 November 2023 the landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s request. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the resident’s medical evidence, and it had raised him to banding A. The landlord said the resident was within category band A on its waiting list for a 5-bedroom property from 4 April 2018.
  4. It was right that the landlord apologised to the resident for its initial lack of follow up in processing his request. We consider an apology to be a proportionate response to this delay. It was also reasonable that the landlord followed its communication up with a letter confirming the resident had been moved to its banding A following its review.
  5. Between February 2024 and March 2024 the resident chased the landlord for it to update him about when he would be transferred to another property. The resident also told the landlord that a member of its staff had told him he would be moved within 5 to 6 weeks. We acknowledge what the resident has said. However, we have not seen any evidence to confirm this. Where there is a lack of independent evidence to support the account made by the resident, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. However, it was right that the landlord advised the resident on 4 March 2024, that it would not be able to confirm when the resident would be rehoused.
  6. The landlord then explained to the resident that all of its 5-bedroom properties were occupied at that time and that it did not know when an appropriate property would become available for him. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it would have a limited stock of this type of property and a long waiting list. Properties need to be allocated based on a priority need. Larger properties are often in the highest demand with more limited supply meaning longer waits for this type of property. The Ombudsman does not have access to the landlord’s housing list so we cannot judge whether there are other people in an even more urgent need of a 5-bedroom property than the resident. In general, the highest priority is given to those who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence.
  7. On 22 April 2024 the landlord advised the resident that he could explore a mutual exchange through homeswapper and also register with his local authority to maximise the number of 5-bedroom properties available to him. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and its sign posting to the resident was in line with its allocations policy, as referred to above.
  8. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.

 

 

 

 

 The resident’s associated complaint.

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 written complaint response within 20 working days. It will explain if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. The landlord will then agree a timescale with the resident detailing when it will provide its complaint response.
  2. On 4 April 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of his request to transfer to another property, as well as the damp and mould within his property. The resident has said that he had attempted to raise a complaint before this date but that the landlord had not responded to him. The evidence we have reviewed shows that a month earlier on 4 March 2024, the landlord advised the resident that he could raise a complaint if he felt the landlord had discriminated against him about his request to transfer to another property. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that he could raise a complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence that demonstrates the resident raised a complaint at that time or prior to the 4 April 2024. Therefore, we have considered that the resident first raised his stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 4 April 2024.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 5 working days later on 10 April 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord then provided its stage 1 written complaint response on 19 April 2024. This was 8 days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy as referred to above.
  4. On 28 May 2024, the landlord told the resident that it needed to extend its timescale for providing him with its stage 2 written complaint response. It said it would respond by 24 June 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that it needed to extend its time to respond to his complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling). This states that we expect a landlord to provide its stage 2 written complaint response within 20 working days. However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s stage 2 complaint, it should communicate this to the resident. Any extension should not exceed a further 20 working days.
  5. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 7 June 2024. This was 28 working days later. This was reasonable as the landlord had communicated its need for an extension to the resident, as referred to above.
  6. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it apologised and accepted that its stage 1 complaint response lacked information in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property. It was appropriate the landlord recognised this and put it right within its final response. The landlord also awarded the resident £150 compensation which it said was for its handling of the resident’s complaint. We consider that this compensation in addition to the landlord’s apology in its final response to be a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.  This amount of compensation is in line with our own remedies guidance which suggests awards in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident over a relatively short period of time.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer to another property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the service failure and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £150 in recognition of its service failure for its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within the property.
  3. The landlord is to pay the resident the £150 it awarded him in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, unless this has already been paid.
  4. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.