Sanctuary Housing Association (202419288)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202419288
Sanctuary Housing Association
28 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 report of a leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould.
- the associated complaint.
Background
2. The resident is an assured tenant under agreement dated May 2022. The landlord is a housing association. She lives in a house with her two sons, one of which has sensory disorder and the other has asthma.
3. On 9 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord there was a roof leak, which caused her son’s room to become damp and grow mould. She reported he has a sensory disorder, and she needs notice before appointments.
4. On 18 October 2023 the landlord said it will arrange to inspect the leak and mould. On 24 February 2024 the resident told the landlord the leak was worse and raised a complaint. It said that a contractor would attend on 28 February and acknowledged her complaint on the same day.
5. On 7 March 2024, the landlord told the resident it needed more time and would reply to her complaint by 21 March. On 25 April, it apologised it had not provided a complaint outcome. It’s stage 1 response on 8 May said:
- it logged her roof leak report on 18 October 2023, arranged for a contractor to attend on 26 January 2024. It found further work was needed, and senior management had to review it.
- it said its Works Co-ordination team will make sure repairs are completed as quickly as possible.
- it upheld the complaint and offered:
- £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused for the excessive delays and impact on the household.
- £25 for the delays responding to the complaint.
- £746 for damaged items in the roof, for cost of a hired skip the resident used to remove damaged items, and to cover portion of energy bills.
6. On 9 May 2024, the resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2, as:
- she’s had to chase for six months.
- two bags of children clothes and some of her children’s beanie baby collection were damp and had to be destroyed.
- her youngest has a sensory disorder, whilst the eldest has asthma.
- the child whose room was affected by the damp and mould had his sleep routine impacted, it affected his mood, and in turn meant she was not able to keep to some appointments as a self-employed person.
7. On 4 June 2024, a surveyor inspected the roof and provided the landlord a quote.
8. On 14 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation for a stage 2 response and would respond by 12 July.
9. On 26 June, the landlord said it needs more time and will respond by 24 July. On 2 September it provided its stage 2 response and said:
- it received the repair quote on 4 June which required a second opinion.
- its maintenance team inspected the roof on 13 August and found neighbouring trees leaning onto the property and referred to the local council to cut back within a month.
- it sent a surveyor on 28 August to inspect the safety of the property and confirmed the roof was dry but there were issues to be addressed.
- it was in the process of scheduling the surveyor’s recommendations to be tracked and monitored through to completion as well as internal works to make good damage caused by water ingress.
- it had not kept to timescales to respond to the resident’s complaint.
- it will learn lessons from the issues found.
- it upheld the complaint and offered:
- £500 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused for the excessive delays and impact on the household, as well as any further impact.
- to complete works within 90 days from when they are approved.
- £250 for the delays responding to the complaint.
- £800 for damaged items in the roof space and for cost of a hired skip used to remove damaged items.
- £200 discretionary payment to aid with energy bills.
- £300 to cover redecoration and carpet cleaning once works completed and that it would not replace carpets as it was rainwater ingress.
- £572 for the loss of enjoyment of the home due to the roof leak.
- A total of £2622, which it said replaces the stage 1 offer.
10. The resident accepted the offer on 3 September 2024 and the landlord replied to her on the same day. It confirmed it will monitor works until completed, and any new issue will need to be raised as a new complaint.
Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure
11. Both sides explained roof repairs have been completed. The resident said the roof was repaired on 26 February 2025, and she has received vouchers and purchased 6 pots of paint to redecorate. She said the landlord treated the mould, her son’s carpet had been cleaned, it has not paid to replace bathroom tiles, and when the trees were removed it took away the facia at the side of the property. The landlord said it received an asbestos survey and on 25 March confirmed all repairs have been completed.
Assessments and findings
The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation
12. The resident referred to impact on her children’s health due to the damp and mould. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on someone’s health, and we cannot calculate or award damages for this. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court, or via a personal injury or insurance claim. Should the resident want to pursue this, she may consider seeking independent advice.
13. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident raised issues with the bathroom tiles and damage to the facia. As these issues were raised after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure finished, they will not be considered as part of this assessment. The reason for this is to give the landlord a chance to respond, prior to our involvement.
Leak into the property and subsequent damp and mould
14. On 9 October 2023 the resident reported a roof leak into her child’s bedroom which she said made it wet and mouldy. The landlord’s policies say:
- for repair and maintenance:
- it will attend within 24 hours to make a property safe if there are serious health and safety issues impacting the household or affecting the property fabric and structure, such as a water leak.
- it will proactively update the resident about the repairs and will complete repairs within 45 days, or 90 days for major repairs.
- for damp, mould, and condensation:
- it will work with the resident to diagnose at an early stage and remedy the situation quickly.
- it will make sure its teams have the right skills and knowledge to tackle the problem effectively.
- It may not get things right the first time but will remedy it quickly.
- it will keep the resident updated throughout assessing and remedying the damp and mould.
- the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) explains:
- hazards in a property include damp and mould.
- damp and mould can affect airways, as well as mental wellbeing due to unpleasant living conditions.
- the most vulnerable group are children under the age of 14, and mould can impact those with respiratory conditions like asthma.
- external fabric of a property should be kept in good repair to avoid rain penetration.
15. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It ensures residents receive accurate information. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
16. The landlord responded to the resident’s report on 18 October 2023. It said it will arrange a contractor. This was 7 working days after her report of a water leak into her son’s bedroom.
17. The landlord’s policies confirm it would attend within 24 hours to make the property safe if there are serious health and safety issues impacting the household. Or affecting the property fabric and structure, such as any type of water leak. The fact it did not attend in 24 hours was unreasonable and left the household and property to be exposed to risk and endure the issue.
18. On 24 February 2024 the resident asked for an update about her roof leak and subsequent damp and mould. She was told to call back on a weekday. The landlord failed to keep to its repairs and damp and mould policy to proactively update the resident, diagnose at an early stage, and attempt to remedy quickly.
19. On the same day, the resident complained the roof leak had got worse. She said this affected her children. She also said there was a hole in the roof, her loft flooded, her heating bill doubled, her mental wellbeing had been impacted, she had to clean mould daily and used a skip to remove damaged items. She chased again for an update on 26 February.
20. It is reasonable to conclude the delay inspecting the leak and subsequent damp and mould caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her children. The law does not define what is considered a reasonable time to remedy damp and mould, and this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are.
21. In this case, the landlord was clearly made aware from the initial report as well as the resident’s complaint of the vulnerabilities in the property. HHSRS sets out the impact damp and mould can have on residents’ mental wellbeing, on children in the property, and those with respiratory conditions, like asthma. The delay inspecting the repair and damp and mould shows the landlord did not pay due regard to HHSRS and the distress and inconvenience caused to a household with clear vulnerabilities.
22. The landlord had not inspected the roof by the time the resident contacted for updates in February 2024. And although it said it requested an inspection on 26 January and 28 February, there is no record of these. The lack of record keeping and updates since her report is a failure of its repair policy to proactively update her. It’s also a failure of its damp and mould policy to work with the resident to diagnose at an early stage and remedy the situation quickly.
23. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 April 2024 and said it needed a revised quote for the repair and on 8 May confirmed a quote was being considered. The landlord attempted contact on 19 May, although the resident was not available to discuss. Even though it began to update her late, and six months after her report, it was fair that it started to do so.
24. The first inspection was on 4 June, 8 months after the leak and damp and mould was reported. By the time the landlord received the inspection, it was already outside its timescale to inspect and repair the issue and it was a failure of its damp and mould policy to remedy quickly.
25. On 19 July 2024 the landlord left a voicemail for the resident and confirmed it was waiting for approval for the roof repair. This was reasonable to keep her updated about what was happening to address the issues.
26. On 25 July, it internally acknowledged the roof had a tree overhanging and on 13 August recognised the council was responsible for it.
27. On 19 August, the landlord internally recorded it had not approved the repair to the roof leak. It explained this to the resident on 23 August, and it had arranged for the council to assess the overhanging trees within the next month. It was reasonable to keep her updated about the repair.
28. On 23 August 2024 the resident said a contractor told her the property was unsafe. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to consider the safety of the property, who attended on 28 August and confirmed tiles had been repaired on the roof, and it was dry and free from water ingress.
29. The landlord arranged for the repair to be inspected previously and although it was reasonable to send a surveyor again, it did not align with its policy to attend within 24-hours to ensure safety. The delay to confirm safety of the property was unreasonable and outside its repair policy.
30. On 28 August, the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed the surveyor found roof tiles had been replaced. She wanted to understand when that happened. The landlord told the resident on 2 September it thinks the roof tiles were replaced on 13 August 2024.
31. Replacing roof tiles took 10 months since the initial report. It was outside its repair policy timeframe to attend within 24 hours and mitigate damage from issues, such as a water leak. It also did not meet its damp and mould policy to remedy the situation quickly. The delay to mitigate further leaks was not fair and reasonable and left the household to withstand it.
32. On 2 September in the landlord’s stage 2 response and following the surveyor’s report, it said the roof was dry and there was no water ingress. But there were issues to be addressed. It committed to scheduling the recommended work which included:
- insufficient loft insulation.
- torn roof felt.
- gap showing daylight in the peak of the roof (gable apex verge).
- mould treatment and stain blocking needed in the roof.
- installation of ventilation system required.
- bedrooms needed redecorating.
33. The landlord internally approved repair work on 24 September 2024 and both sides have since agreed roof repair had been completed. The resident told us this was on 26 February 2025.
34. The landlord received an asbestos survey and is arranging a contractor to remove it to complete electrical works for the ventilation unit. It has since confirmed all repairs have been completed for the roof and to remedy the damp and mould.
35. In summary, it was not reasonable to have taken 8 months to inspect the property, 10 months to mitigate any water leak impact, and 17 months to repair the roof and start to remedy damp and mould. It did not take due regard for vulnerabilities in the household as per HHSRS. And contributed to damaged possessions, increased energy bills, distress caused to the household to endure the conditions of damp, and inconvenience caused to regularly wash mould and chase for repair.
36. From the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses, it committed to scheduling the surveyor’s recommendations to be monitored until completion, and make good damage caused by water ingress. It offered a total of £2372 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused, and it also included discretionary payments for increased energy usage, redecoration, and damaged items. It also acknowledged its poor record keeping and said it would learn lessons from what’s happened.
37. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
38. Although the landlord’s responses and offer had put most things right for the resident, it did not set a timescale in its responses to confirm when the repairs would be completed, to manage the resident’s expectation. This was unreasonable, not in line with its policies, and left the household to endure the problems with no clear understanding of when the issues will be remedied.
39. Therefore, we find there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of the roof leak and damp and mould.
40. After careful consideration, in line with our remedies guidance and considering the landlord’s complaint policy, a fair level of compensation in addition to the amount already offered by the landlord would be £100. This recognises the inconvenience and frustration caused as she was not told when it expected to complete repairs in its responses.
associated complaint
41. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
- acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
- respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date it acknowledged it.
- if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
- Acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of the escalation request.
- It must provide its final response within 20 working days of it being acknowledged.
- if an extension is needed, that it communicates the timescale to the resident, and it is no longer than a further 00 working days.
42. The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.
43. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2024 and so it had until 2 March to acknowledge the complaint. On 28 February it acknowledged the complaint, and that a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days (by 10 March). This is in line with the Code.
44. On 7 March 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed more time and will respond by 21 March. This is reasonable and in line with the Code.
45. The landlord called the resident on 22 April 2024 to update her, but no complaint outcome was provided. It apologised to her for this on 25 April.
46. It provided its stage 1 response on 8 May 2024. This was 32 working days late, and not in line with 6.3 and 6.4 of the Code.
47. On 9 May 2024 the resident confirmed she was not happy with the outcome and wanted to escalate to stage 2. She called for an update on 29 May.
48. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation late on 14 June 2024. This was not in line with 6.11 of the Code. It meant the resident was unsure if her complaint was heard and inconvenienced her as she chased for an update.
49. On 26 June 2024 the landlord told the resident it needs an extension and will respond by 24 July. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
50. The resident asked for an update on 5, 14, and 22 August 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay on 22 August. She asked for an update again on 2 September.
51. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 September 2024. This was 28 working days and not in line with 6.14 and 6.15 of the Code.
52. Overall, the landlord did not respond to the stage 1 complaint in time. It also did not acknowledge the escalation and respond to stage 2 in time. On that basis, it failed to comply with its own complaint policy, and the Ombudsman’s Code, which caused inconvenience as she chased for updates on 5 occasions.
53. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. It offered £250, as it did not respond to stage 1 and 2 in time and did not escalate to stage 2 in time.
54. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were reasonable and appropriate.
55. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offer to be reasonable redress in the circumstances of the case. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay this sum of compensation if it has not already done so.
Determination
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord as it did not provide a timeline for when the repairs and subsequent damp and mould would be resolved.
57. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was ‘reasonable redress’ in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It offered reasonable redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
58. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
- pay the resident £2372 it offered for the issues found in its response to repairs and damp and mould, if it has not already done so.
- pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for inconvenience and frustration, as a timeframe of repairs was not set out for her.
- write to the resident setting out the lessons learnt from the complaint and how it will prevent similar failings from happening again.
- the landlord must provide us evidence of compliance with these orders.
Recommendations
59. it is recommended that the landlord should:
- pay the resident a total of £250 for the complaint handling failures, if it has not already been paid to her.
- review the repairs service given to the resident post its internal complaint procedure, and it is recommended that that landlord consider further compensation to the resident should further failures be identified.