Sanctuary Housing Association (202447232)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447232

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. A leak from a toilet and the damage caused by this.
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He has lived at the property, which is a 1 bedroom flat since May 2023.
3. Between 21 June 2024 and 7 October 2024, the resident reported issues with damp and mould, as well as issues with his toilet. The landlord attended several times during this period to investigate the issues reported. In October 2024, it identified that it needed to complete repairs relating to the roof and gully.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 November 2024. He said the condition of the roof was causing leaks throughout his building, which was causing mould growth. He said this had damaged his belongings. On 25 November 2024, the resident complained about an ongoing leak from his toilet.
5. The landlord said it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2024. It apologised for the issues the resident was experiencing. It acknowledged he had reported several issues, such as leaks and issues with mould and the roof. It explained one of its supervisors had recently completed an inspection and it would contact the resident to arrange works once it received the report.
6. On 28 January 2025, the resident said that all the issues he raised at stage 1 remained unresolved.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 February 2025. It said it had arranged an appointment for 11 February 2025 to fix the leak from the toilet. It explained what actions it had taken regarding mould at his property. It acknowledged failures in its communication and offered the resident £100 compensation.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had fixed the leak from the toilet but not addressed the damage caused by the leak. He explained that he was still experiencing issues with mould and this had damaged his personal belongings. He requested the landlord complete repairs and provide compensation to resolve his complaint.
9. The landlord told us that it completed repairs to the roof on 2 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. As part of his complaint to us the resident said that his health has been affected by the presence of damp and mould within his property. We are unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option.

The landlord’s response to the repairs for a leak from a toilet and the damage caused by this.

11. The resident reported on 21 June 2024 there was a leak behind his toilet. The landlord attended the same day and fixed the leak.
12. The resident reported a blockage in his toilet was causing a leak on 30 September 2024. The landlord attended the same day and cleared the blockage. He then reported a leak that got worse when flushing the toilet on 7 October 2024. The landlord attended on 9 October 2024. Its records show it had no access and that the resident would call to rebook.
13. The resident reported his toilet was leaking from the waste pipe on 21 November 2024. The landlord attended the same day but again recorded it had no access to the property. It reattended on 23 November 2024 and found that it needed to replace a part of the toilet system to fix the leak. It completed a repair to reduce the leak until it could replace the part.
14. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs promptly but does not provide a specific timescale to complete a repair.
15. The evidence shows the landlord responded promptly to each of the resident’s reports during the period June 2024 to November 2024, in line with its policy. While the resident reported several leaks, the evidence does not indicate any clear failings in the steps the landlord took during this period. Delays in the landlord taking action to resolve the issue were due to it being unable to access the resident’s property.
16. The resident complained on 11 November 2024. He said the flooring in his living room and hallway had been severely damaged by leaks from his bathroom. On 25 November 2024, he complained about a continuing leak from his toilet. He said he had reported this several times with no proper solution. He explained that contaminated water containing human waste was leaking onto his bathroom floor and out into his hallway. He asked the landlord to take urgent action.
17. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2024. It acknowledged the resident had reported leaks and blockages to his drainage system. It explained it was awaiting a report from a supervisor and once it had this it would contact the resident to arrange the necessary work.
18. The landlord’s response failed to review its handling of the leaks to date or identity what steps it needed to take to resolve the issue. It also failed to address the resident’s reports that leaks had damaged his flooring. The failure to review its handling and address all issues raised was unreasonable.
19. The resident chased a response to his complaint on 7 January 2025. He said he not received a response and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. On 16 January 2025, the landlord provided a copy of its stage 1 response. It said it had previously emailed this to him on 28 November 2024. It also said that it had tried to contact him by phone and email on 26 November 2024 to arrange an emergency appointment. However, it did not hear back from him. It asked the resident to confirm what issues remained unresolved.
20. We have not been provided with the evidence which corroborates the landlord attempted to contact the resident on 26 November 2024.
21. The resident told the landlord on 28 January 2025 that all issues raised at stage 1 remained unresolved. In February 2025, the landlord booked an appointment to fix the leak from the toilet.
22. On 6 February 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident had reported human waste was leaking onto his flooring. It said it had booked an appointment for 11 February 2025 to fix the leak from his toilet. It explained it had previously attempted to arrange a repair in November 2024. It apologised that it did not make more effort to contact the resident and offered £100, as a gesture of goodwill.
23. The landlord completed repairs to stop the leak on 11 February 2025. The time taken to arrange and complete the repair from 23 November 2024 was unreasonable, as this was not in line with the landlord’s policy to complete repairs promptly. While the resident not responding to the landlord’s request to arrange an appointment contributed to the delay, it is reasonable to expect the landlord should have made further attempts to arrange a repair it was aware was outstanding.
24. The landlord’s acknowledgment and apology that it could have made more effort to contact the resident following its attempt on 26 November 2024 was a fair self-assessment of its failings.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer compensation for damage to belongings caused by its action or inaction.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report of damage to his property. However, it did not address the matter or demonstrate it considered providing compensation in line with its policy. This was a failure in the landlord’s response.
27. The evidence shows the landlords failings in the case were poor communication, a failure to assess the damage to the resident’s property in accordance with its policy, and that it took too long to make the temporary repair to the toilet permanent.
28. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
29. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failures in its communication and the resulting delay in it completing repairs. In communication to us, the landlord acknowledged it failed to address the complaint at stage 1 and accepted this was a failing on its part.
30. It also acknowledged in its communication with us that it had failed to address the resident’s reports of damaged flooring. It said it would retrospectively assess any damage to the resident’s personal belongings. It said it will assess any damage in line with its compensation policy and consider an appropriate offer of redress to the resident. Whilst these are positive steps for the landlord to have identified since the complaint handling concluded, it is a failure in its complaints policy that it did not identify and act on these at the material time.
31. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, as a gesture of goodwill. This is below what our remedies guidance suggest is an appropriate offer of compensation where the landlord’s failings have had an adverse effect on the resident. In this situation the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but it has failed to address the detriment to the resident and its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In this case, the resident said waste was leaking into his home, which is likely to have been upsetting and distressing to the resident.
32. The failure to award appropriate compensation for the failings identified by our investigation leads to a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to a leak from the resident’s toilet.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

33. The resident reported on 21 June 2024 that there was damp and mould in his property. He said there were mould patches in his bedroom and bathroom, as well as damp on walls around the property.
34. The landlord completed an inspection on 24 June 2024. The assessor reported a strong smell of damp. He identified weep holes on the exterior wall to where the damp was inside. The records show the assessor and his supervisor disagreed on the cause of the damp and a second opinion was required.
35. The landlord attended on 2 July 2024 but recorded that there was no access. It then attended on 4 October 2024 to complete an inspection. There is no evidence explaining the 3 months of inaction between July and October. Given the unexplained delay, the time taken for a supervisor to complete an inspection was unreasonable.
36. In October 2024, the landlord identified defects on the flat roof of the property. It also identified the roof gully was blocked with debris, as well as a downpipe. This was assessed to be potentially causing water to run down the walls of the property. The landlord stated it needed to complete works to resolve these issues. It recorded there was no mould present in the resident’s property, as the resident said he had already removed it.
37. The landlord attended on 25 October 2024 for roof works but reported it could not gain access to a neighbour’s property.
38. The resident complained on 11 November 2024. He said he had experienced issues with damp, mould, and the roof. He said that rainwater seeping into his property was causing issues with damp and mould, as well as damaging the structure of the building. He said that mould growth had damaged his bedroom carpet. He also asked for an explanation for the installation of plasterboard wall in his kitchen and bathroom.
39. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 November 2024. It acknowledged the repair issues the resident had reported. It said a supervisor had recently completed an inspection. It explained it had requested a copy of the supervisor’s report and a date for its roofing team to attend. It said once it had this, it would contact him to arrange the necessary works.
40. The landlord’s complaint response failed to fully review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It failed to answer a question the resident asked about the installation of a plasterboard wall or respond to his reports that mould had damaged his carpet. The failure to answer all the points of the complaint was unreasonable.
41. The landlord recorded that it attended the resident’s property regarding roof repairs on 12 December 2024. However, as there was no answer when knocking on either the resident’s or his neighbour’s door in order to get access to the roof. The operative had no contact numbers for the residents.
42. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 in January 2025. He said all the issues remained outstanding from his stage 1 complaint. On 3 February 2025, the resident provided pictures of two items he said had been damaged by mould.
43. In its stage 2 response on 6 February 2025, the landlord said it was sorry to hear of the resident’s reports of mould in his property. It clarified the actions it had taken, saying it had replastered and repainted the walls in his kitchen. It asked him to report any further issues he had with mould, so it could arrange an appointment to investigate this.
44. When assessing the landlord’s response, it is not clear how replastering or repainting the kitchen walls would resolve the damp and mould issues the resident reported. The evidence shows the supervisor inspection in October 2024 stated this work was required to resolve an unrelated issue with a kitchen cupboard falling off the wall. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude this work was not related to resolving damp and mould issues.
45. The landlord’s response did not provide any updates on it completing any outstanding works which were identified as necessary from its inspection in October 2024. It again did not explain why it had installed a “fake” plasterboard wall. It also did not address the resident’s report of mould damaging his carpet or acknowledge any failures in its handling to date. The failure to address all points raised by the resident in his complaint was against the requirements of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) and against its complaints policy. Therefore, the landlord’s response was unreasonable, as it did not resolve the resident’s complaint or take steps to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
46. The landlord said its initial attempts to complete the works with the roof were unsuccessful due to access issues. The evidence shows the landlord was unable to gain access in October and December 2024, however, basic information such as contact details for the residents of the properties its staff were visiting had not been provided. Alongside the delays in the case, this is evidence of poor management of the repairs process.
47. The landlord confirmed to us that it completed the roof gully and gutter related works on 2 June 2025. However, there is no evidence explaining the lack of action between 12 December 2024 and 2 June 2025. Given the length of time taken to complete the repairs, the landlord’s actions were unreasonable and not in line with its policy to complete repairs promptly.
48. In its communication to us, the landlord identified as a way to improve the landlord tenant relationship it would complete a full inspection of the resident’s property to determine if any additional work is required. This is a positive step. However, the landlord could have done this as part of its complaint process and this is learning that it could take.
49. Overall, the evidence shows there were unreasonable delays in the landlord completing an inspection and repairs. The landlord did not respond to all issues the resident raised, or address his claim mould had damaged his belongings. The landlord failed to identify its poor handling in its complaint responses or put things right.
50. The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration. An order for £400 has been made. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the repairs for a leak from a toilet and the damage caused by this.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

53. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £850. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its internal complaints process. This is comprised of:
    1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling in response to the complaint regarding the leak from the toilet.
    2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
54. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide an apology to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report.
55. Within 4 weeks the landlord must assess the damage caused by leaks and mould in line with its compensation policy. It must provide a copy of its findings and proposed course of action with the resident and the Service. This must make it clear what the damage is and what resolution/redress it will offer.
56. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

57. It is recommended that the landlord should complete a full inspection of the resident’s property to ascertain if any further work is required.