Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Sanctuary Housing Association (202447865)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447865

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 August 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in her property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a house under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since April 2019.
  2. The resident has said she had been reporting damp issues to the landlord since she moved in. She said the damp appeared to be rising from the ground and affecting the internal walls on the ground floor. In March 2023 she raised her first complaint to it about the damp. It responded in April 2023 by saying while it had inspected the property several times it felt the damp needed to be inspected by a specialist contractor, which it had now arranged following some delays. It apologised and offered her compensation for the delays. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord on 9 March 2024. She said despite it arranging further inspections it still had not taken any action to fix the damp. She said she had chased it repeatedly for updates but had no response. She asked again for it to complete the necessary repairs.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 April 2024. It said its records showed the resident had only started reporting damp to it since March 2023. It acknowledged there had been delays in resolving the issue and said it would complete a mould wash. It offered her a total of £175 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 April 2024. She said the landlord’s records were incorrect as she had been reporting damp issues since 2019. She did not feel a mould wash would resolve the problem.
  5. The landlord responded with a review of its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024. It acknowledged its response had incorrect information. It acknowledged delays resolving the problem and explained it would arrange a further inspection and keep her updated about the outstanding works. It increased its compensation to £250.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 June 2024. She said the landlord had not been in contact with her since its stage 1 review or completed the mould wash. She said the damp issue was still ongoing, and she wanted it to complete the necessary repairs.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2024. It acknowledged further delays receiving a works quote and once received would then start work. It also arranged a mould wash for later than month. It apologised and offered a total of £1834 in compensation.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Service in May 2025. She said the landlord had still not completed works to resolve the damp and the issue was now affecting her son’s health. She said it had not contacted her since its final complaint response in September 2024. She wanted it to resolve the damp issues and offer her further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service she said she had been reporting damp issues to the landlord since 2019. Her first formal complaint to the landlord about the issue in March 2023. She did not complete the complaints process with that complaint or bring it to the Ombudsman at the time. There are time limits on complaints which the Ombudsman will investigate, and a complaint needs to have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process before the Ombudsman will consider it.
  2. For those reasons this investigation centres on the resident’s new complaint to the landlord in March 2024 for which the landlord sent its final response in September..

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in her property

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation Policy states that when a resident first reports damp or mould, it will arrange a mould wash at the property. A regional surveyor will then inspect the issue. Any problems identified will be dealt with under the Repairs and Maintenance Policy. It says it will keep the resident regularly updated, especially if multiple inspections are needed to find the cause.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy divides repairs into two categories: “emergency” and “appointed”. It aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 working days of the report. It acknowledges that delays may occur, particularly when specialist contractors are required. In such cases, it says it will continue to update the resident on the progress of the repair.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to the landlord she said despite multiple inspections of the damp, by both the landlord and an external contractor, it had failed to complete any repairs. She said its communication had been poor and she continually had to chase it for updates. She wanted it to fix the damp issue.
  4. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord accepted there had been delays in resolving the damp issue. At stage 1, it said its contractor had not provided investigation reports promptly, which delayed its ability to approve the recommended works. At stage 2, it confirmed it was still waiting for this information, despite sending regular follow-ups. It stated that once received, it would approve the works and ensure it kept the resident regularly updated. It also arranged a mould wash for September 2024.
  5. In the landlord’s final response it acknowledged the difficulties the damp issue had caused the resident. It apologised for the delays and impact and offered her a total of £1834 compensation, comprising of:
    1. £400 for time and trouble; including delays to works, poor communication, poor record keeping, resident having to chase and needing to raise a second complaint.
    2. £400 for poor complaint handling.
    3. £984 for loss of enjoyment; calculated as 10% of resident’s weekly rent for 70 weeks ((£140.46 x 70) / 10 = £984).
    4. £50 for further delays it foresaw would occur in October 2024.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its poor service, because the evidence confirms there were significant delays in addressing the damp issue. This included a lengthy delay after the contractor inspected the property in April 2023. The evidence shows it did not provide its inspection report to the landlord until September 2024.
  7. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord carried out its own inspection in April 2024 to assess whether repairs could be completed without using an external contractor. This was a reasonable step to take as it had experience ongoing delays with the contractor and bringing the repair in house may have sped up the process. However, inspection notes show it concluded the issue was complex and required specialist input.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 in June 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord chased the contractor for the inspection report before this point. After the escalation, its complaints team began seeking updates from its own surveyor about the contractor’s progress. Internal emails show it contacted the surveyor 14 times between June and September 2024 but received no response. Following a meeting in September 2024, the surveyor agreed to chase the contractor for its report, which it provided shortly after.
  9. The landlord’s failure to follow up with the contractor immediately after the April 2023 inspection further delayed progress on the damp repairs. This delay, along with its failure to update the resident, was not in line with its damp and mould policy. It also did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses, which was not appropriate.
  10. The landlord failed to acknowledge its communication with the resident about the damp had been poor. In its stage 1 review response it said it would be in regular contact with her about the outstanding damp works. However, there is no evidence of it subsequently doing so.
  11. The resident complained about the poor communication in her stage 2 escalation, saying no one had contacted her. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response, and instead just reiterated it would be in regular contact going forward. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords should respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. It’s failure to respond to the issue was therefore not in line with the Code.
  12. Nonetheless, the compensation of £1434 the landlord offered for its failings and their impact on the resident was the maximum amount its compensation policy allowed, and was significant. In providing that level of compensation the landlord recognised the  time and trouble the resident had been put to, and the impact on her use of parts of her property.
  13. The remedies the landlord offered in its complaint responses, would have reasonably resolved the complaint if it had then followed through with the promises it made of further steps to address the mould. It said it would arrange for damp works to start once it had approved a quote from its contractor. It also promised to keep the resident regularly updated on the issue.
  14. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response it arranged for a different contractor to inspect the resident’s property and provide a quote for works. The evidence shows this contractor provided a quote to it in October 2024. The resident told this Service in August 2025 that this contractor only started damp works at her property in July 2025 and there were still outstanding work and redecoration to be done. The landlord also told us its contractor is due to visit her again at the end of August 2025 to continue damp works.
  15. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to seek a second quote given that budgeting and ensuring cost effectiveness of repairs is part of its operations. However, there was a significant delay between it receiving the quote in October 2024 and its contractor starting works in July 2025. There is no evidence to suggest there was a reason for this further delay, and this was therefore not appropriate. There is also no evidence to suggest it updated her on its progress during this time, despite promising this in its stage 2 response. This was not reasonable as it did not do what it said it would.
  16. Overall, parts of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in her property were appropriate. It acknowledged delays in progressing works and it offered a significant amount of compensation. Nevertheless, it did not acknowledge in its complaint responses its poor communication with the resident, and then failed to update her following its final complaint response. These failings mean the resident’s complaint was only partially resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a two stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days after acknowledgement. For stage 2 responses it aims to respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It says it can extend the response deadline for either stage by no more than 20 working days. If extending its policy says it should confirm this with the resident.
  2. The landlord acknowledged there had been significant delays in issuing its stage 2 response. It apologised for this and offered £400 compensation for poor complaint handling.
  3. The landlord did not identify that in reviewing its original complaint response when the resident asked to escalate her complaint it was not acting in line with its complaints policy or the Code, which clearly states it operates a two stage complaint process only. The landlord’s approach prolonged the process for the resident.
  4. However, while it did not directly acknowledge all its complaint handling failings in its final response, its offer of £400 compensation was reasonable. This is because its compensation policy states the maximum compensation it can offer for poor complaint handling is £100. As such, its offer reflected all its complaint handling failings and the impact this had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp in her property.
  2. 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 failures with its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 compensation for the continued delays to repairing the damp issues and poor communication.
  2. Within 6 weeks the landlord must confirm the outcome of its planned August 2025 inspection and share it with the resident, along with its action plan to address and resolve any damp problems it finds. The landlord must also include in its plan the steps it will take to rectify any internal decoration damage related to the damp.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of all the above to the Service.