Sanctuary Housing Association (202417848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417848

Sanctuary Housing Association

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould and defects at the property.
2. complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a five-bedroom end terrace house. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 5 children, at least 3 of which are now adults. For ease of reading, I have used ‘the resident’ to describe the actions of both the resident and her husband.
In September 2018 the resident reported to the landlord that damp in the property had returned following treatment. The landlord visited the property the next month noting there was damp and water ingress, and it should identify the cause of that. In December 2018 the landlord inspected the property and found no leak from under the bath. It noted a “large crack” to the exterior which could allow water to enter. It also noted the kitchen wall was damp due to a lack of insulation and “vapor barrier” and a surveyor should inspect the property.
Some 9 months later, in September 2019, a surveyor attended. They identified very high damp readings in the kitchen and noted the bath panel should be removed to find and resolve the source of the leak. It also noted it should make good the hole in the kitchen wall that it had previously made to investigate the damp. The following month the landlord identified no leak from the bath. In November 2019 the resident told the landlord that mould was spreading to the top bedrooms in the property. The landlord noted an inspection was required.
In March 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the chimney was leaking. The landlord subsequently noted, following an inspection, work was required to treat the damp works and repair the chimney. In January 2021 the resident re-reported the leak from the roof, damp and mould and the hole in the kitchen wall. They said the property was “becoming uninhabitable”. The landlord raised a job to attend and rectify the leak urgently. It also raised a damp survey. In November 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. In response the landlord offered £250 for the delay in completing repairs. It subsequently closed the complaint in May 2022. The evidence suggests that a damp survey was completed in December 2021.
On 26 September 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the lack of repairs. They described water pouring from the ceiling below the upstairs bathroom. The landlord raised a further inspection of the property. In its stage 1 complaint response of 21 October 2022 the landlord said, following the surveyor’s visit to the property, it had asked its roofing contractor to inspect the roof for leaks. It said it would repair the ongoing leak in the upstairs bathroom, repair the hole in the kitchen wall and replace the damaged flooring in the bathroom. It offered compensation of £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise the complaint. A few days later the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as they were unhappy with the proposed works and the amount of compensation offered.
In November and December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining it needed more time to complete its stage 2 complaint response.
A subsequent survey of the property found that structural movement had occurred to the rear of the property. There was also evidence of rising damp and damp penetration due to blocked gutters and a downpipe. It found a number of external cracks and widespread cracking internally also. The evidence suggests a further structural survey took place in December 2023. The landlord received the outcome of that survey in early 2024 and put the works out for tender at that time. Given the significant cost of the works, they required approval.
On 9 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response (some 22 months after the resident’s escalation request). It said it had considered the repairs since October 2018 as that was when the resident had first raised matters. The main points were:
1. It had failed to resolve the cause of damp and mould at the property and therefore the issues had persisted. There had been several inspections by its internal surveyors, and it had had to chase to get feedback from them. When repairs were raised, it had given no explanation of those to the resident (why they were raised or how these repairs would rectify the damp).
2. It acknowledged its contractors had attended without prior appointment and without giving appropriate warning of visits.
3. There was delay of several months in carrying out a structural survey. It had not completed the repairs within 12 weeks as it had previously stated.
4. The landlord set out next steps including the need to move the resident on a temporary basis (to ‘decant’ them).
5. There had been a failure in how it had dealt with the complaint including poor communication, record keeping and ensuring it addressed the resident’s concerns in line with its policy and procedures.
6. It had failed to address the increased utility costs that the resident had experienced, despite them raising it on several occasions.
7. It had fed back the findings from its investigation to senior managers to ensure that it provided appropriate training to staff so that they were fully aware of what course of action should be taken, or could be taken, when faced with similar circumstances.
In summary, the landlord said it was clear it had failed to manage the repairs and that it had not communicated with the resident in an appropriate manner. It said there had also been a failure in its record keeping and ensuring that reports from its surveyors were received and actioned within a timely manner. It said it fully accepted that these repairs had not been completed in line with its expected timescales.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £12,593 (the amounts add up to £12,582) made up of:
1. £400 for time trouble and inconvenience.
2. £500 for poor complaint handling.
3. £250 for poor communication.
4. £400 for delays in repairs.
5. £250 for record keeping.
6. £3,822 for increased energy bills from October 2018 to the end of April 2024.
7. £2,000 for the redecoration of the house including carpets.
8. £4,460 for the loss of enjoyment of the property from October 2018 to 11 August 2024.
9. £500 for future impact (to October 2024 which was the maximum expected timescale for the resident to be temporarily moved from the property to allow the works to start.)
We understand that the resident and family were moved on a temporary basis to two properties on the same street in early February 2025 and the worked should be completed by early May 2025. When the resident approached us, they said as an outcome they wanted the works completed and the compensation looked at again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident has told us about their concerns with the decant process and the repair work that is taking place at the property. However, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. Therefore, this report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs as well as its handling of the associated complaint.

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

The landlord is obliged by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure that its properties are fit for human habitation, including by avoiding defects from repairs, damp, and mould. This means ensuring a safe and healthy environment in its properties by keeping these free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards, and by providing adequate protection from these, including structural collapse and damp and mould growth.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord will maintain and, where appropriate, keep in proper working order among other things the structure and outside of the building including the roof, outside walls, drains, gutters, external pipes and chimneys, as well as internal walls, floors and ceilings and major internal plasterwork.
We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy that was in place in 2018 when the resident first reported repairs. The policy in place from January 2020 says that it had 2 categories of repairs, including:
1. emergency repairs where a repair is required to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the resident(s) or the structure and fabric of their home. It aimed to attend and make safe the property within 24 hours. Examples of an emergency repair included a water leak coming through the ceiling. The policy noted a second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works.
2. appointed repairs which the landlord aimed to complete within 28 days.
The landlord amended its repairs policy in September 2023 to reflect that it aimed to complete appointed repairs within 45 days. This policy also noted that it aimed to complete all major repairs within 90 days. It did not define such major repairs. The landlord introduced damp and mould policy and procedures in May 2024.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems in the property including damp and mould, water ingress and large cracks to the walls was not appropriate. At the first inspection in September 2018 after the resident had reported the damp had returned after treatment, the landlord identified there was water ingress into the property. In December 2018 it identified a likely cause – a large crack in the exterior wall. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in relation to this crack until January 2023 when it noted “severe subsidence”. It is possible that, had the landlord taken, and followed, specialist advice in December 2018 that the subsequent damage to the property might have been prevented.
The landlord made a hole in the kitchen wall in December 2018 to establish the cause of the damp there. In October 2022 a surveyor raised various works and noted the landlord should “make the hole in the kitchen wall”. This followed several requests by the surveyor to “make good” the hole in the wall. About a week later an operative visited and noted there already was a hole in the kitchen wall. The resident contacted the landlord the same day. But despite that and their many requests to the landlord to fill this hole, the evidence suggests it remained until the residents moved out of the property on a temporary basis in February 2025 some 6 years later. This caused great frustration to the residents.
When the resident reported a leaking chimney in late 2019, the landlord only noted a roof inspection was required some 2 years later at the end of 2021. While the landlord inspected the property many times (5 times between 2018 and the end of 2021), it did not take responsibility to ensure that appropriate inspections were carried out such as of the roof or a structural survey. There was no oversight by the landlord of the issues raised by the resident. The evidence suggests that it was only in January 2023, after a survey identified “severe subsidence”, that it started to take substantive action by arranging a structural survey.
In its complaint handling the landlord appeared to partly place blame on its internal surveyors saying it had had to chase information from them. This does not account for the at least 6-year delay in remedying the defects at the property. The landlord should have systems in place to ensure that information from surveys is fed back to it and that it follows up any recommendations promptly. The landlord is responsible for its surveyors and their work. It should ensure that its staff are not working in silos which impacts its ability to diagnose and remedy repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord had acknowledged the very poor state of the property by early 2023. The surveyor’s report of March 2023 noted there were a lot of urgent repairs at the property including a drains inspection at the rear of the property; damp and structural surveys; and an inspection of the roof. The surveyor noted further these were required “to avoid condemning [the property] if the tenant went to environmental health”. In the same month the landlord noted that the guttering needed redirecting to stop “water running into the property”.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a decant at that time. The surveyor noted “Not requires decant works need to be done external prior to internal works”. The landlord told us it believed the surveyor was saying that the family could remain in the property, as the surveys would be conducted externally. Conversely, the surveyor’s note could be read as ‘Note requires decant …’. While the landlord accepted the surveyor’s note could be misleading, there is no evidence it checked with him what he meant. This would have been a reasonable step to take given the ambiguity of his statement.
There is no evidence the landlord asked the companies who completed surveys in June 2023 whether the property was fit for habitation. These reports are silent on this issue. It would have been appropriate for it to have taken action to satisfy itself if the property was safe for the family. The landlord told us that it had not considered a decant to be necessary because the specification of works from January 2024 noted the contractor had identified that the resident could remain in the property whilst the works were undertaken. The evidence does not support that. Paragraph 3.05.2 of the specification says: “The contractor shall note that the main building itself will be vacated for the duration of the works and must ensure that it is kept secure.”
Our view therefore remains that the landlord should have assessed the property in early 2023 to have satisfied itself that it was safe for the family to remain in. The resident was clear with the landlord about the poor state of the property in 2023 describing how, when it rained, “water dampens the internal walls right down to the ground floor from the roof”. There is no evidence the landlord considered a temporary move until its stage 2 complaint response some 18 months later. While the size of the household meant it would likely take time to find alternative accommodation, it should have taken that decision much sooner. It should also have considered what repairs it could have carried out with the family still in the property. There is no evidence it took such action, and these were further failings.
In its complaint handling the landlord also acknowledged its poor communication with the resident and that its staff/contractors had attended without giving appropriate notice. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord should give at least 24 hours notice in writing (except in an emergency) to enter the property to, among other things inspect and carry out repairs. The landlord did not act appropriately in this case which caused further frustration to the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to remind its staff and contractors of the need to give advance warning to residents when attending properties.
There were significant failures and delays by the landlord in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs. In its complaint handling, the landlord accepted it made errors. It is therefore our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered £3,822 for increased energy bills from 2018 to April 2024. The landlord calculated this on the basis of £3 a day from October to April each year. We consider that was a reasonable approach by the landlord given the historical nature of these costs.
The offer of £2,000 redecoration costs (towards redecoration, carpet and carpet fitting) also appears reasonable. We note the landlord is redecorating the property before the family move back in.
The landlord offered the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the repairs which totalled £6,010 (this included loss of enjoyment to the property of about £14.50 a week). We do not consider that this sum reflects the full impact on the household of the errors and delays in carrying out the reported repairs.
Additional financial compensation of £4,975 is appropriate. This is based on 33% of the rent from the date of the surveyor’s report in March 2023 until the family were placed in temporary accommodation in early February 2025. This is to recognise that impact on the enjoyment of the property. We have said 33% to take into account that the landlord has awarded some compensation for this period. This amounts to an additional payment of £4,975. We have linked the compensation to the rent because the repair issues impacted the resident’s use of the property. This is consistent with our approach in other similar cases.
The sums awarded in this report are in line with our Remedies Guidance which sets out our approach to compensation. Awards in this range include cases where there have been significant delays in investigating and remedying repair issues which had a severe impact on the household members.
We note that in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had fed back the findings from its investigation to senior managers to ensure that appropriate training is provided to staff. We have made a further order to ensure that the failings identified are properly considered at a senior level within the organisation.
Had the landlord not made efforts to put matters right in its stage 2 complaint response, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration. However, we recognise its efforts to put matters right in that response and have therefore made a finding of maladministration on the basis that the compensation it offered was not proportionate to the impact on the household.

The associated complaint

At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. It aimed to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales are in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged:
1. it had closed a previous complaint (made in November 2021) in error in May 2022. It said it had since identified the resident had made an escalation request which it had failed to action.
2. a significant delay of over 21 months in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord offered compensation for the inconvenience and frustration caused by these errors totalling £750 including £250 for poor record keeping. Had the landlord not taken steps to resolve matters in its stage 2 complaint response, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration. However, we consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was a reasonable and proportionate step to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and defects at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we consider the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling aspect of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident the sum of £4,975 in rent-related compensation. This should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist
2. complete redecoration in the property when the repair works are completed as promised
3. remind appropriate staff members and contractors of the need to give advance warning to residents when attending properties.
Within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review at senior management level of its practices around repairs and its procedures relating to properties that may cause a significant risk to residents (such as where there is damp or subsidence) and the action it would be appropriate for it to take in these circumstances (including consideration of a decant).
2. undertake a review of what happened in relation to the resident’s initial complaint and why there was such a significant delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord should feedback to relevant staff to ensure such poor complaint handling does not happen again.
3. draft a report setting out the findings of its review and any learning and recommended changes.
4. provide a copy its report to its senior leadership team and governance team, as well as member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the reviews. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
5. Depending on its findings, it should consider if it should make a self-referral to the Regulator with a copy of this report and its review.