From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202432142)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432142

Sanctuary Housing Association

16 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in the property.
  2. This service has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. She has lived at the property since March 2005. It is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. She has also told the landlord that she has other health conditions.
  2. The resident first reported issues of damp and mould to her housing officer during a visit on 12 February 2024. The housing officer sent an internal email to its repairs team, asking that it carry out an inspection and act to resolve the issues found. This recorded that there was “mould on the bedroom carpet where moisture/damp seems to be coming up from underneath the floor”. It also noted that issues of damp had returned to the kitchen floor which it had replaced “about a year ago” and that there was a strong smell of damp in the hall storage cupboard.
  3. A contractor attended the resident’s home on 15 April 2024. It found evidence of damp and mould but could not find the source of this. It arranged a follow up inspection by a surveyor to complete a full damp and mould inspection on 19 April 2024. Following the inspection, on 29 April 2024, the surveyor asked the landlord’s main contractor to provide a quote for a range of works.
  4. On 1 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repairs. Its wellbeing team took responsibility for following through the progress of the repairs. This was due to the impact on the resident’s health. On 8 May 2024 the landlord agreed to buy a garden storage box for the resident. This was to enable her to remove items stored in the understairs cupboard, as the damp was affecting these.
  5. The landlord’s contractor provided a quote for the works on 17 May 2024. This followed its own inspection of the property. It set out that it should do the works in 2 phases. Firstly, to inject a chemical damp proof course into the external walls of the affected areas and to clear and unblock rear guttering and downpipes. It said that it should allow the property to dry out before it assessed the second phase. The landlord approved the quote on 24 May 2024, and arranged an appointment for the 7 June 2024.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 June 2024. In this she said:
    1. She had reported damp to her housing officer during a visit on 12 February 2024. They had told her to remove items from the hall cupboard as the floor and walls were wet. She had also shown the housing officer mould coming through the kitchen floor. This had happened previously, and the landlord had replaced the flooring, but it had now returned.
    2. On 5 April 2024 she had reported that her carpets were wet. A workman had attended on 12 April 2024, but he did not have a damp meter.
    3. The surveyor inspected on 19 April 2024. He had told her that the sealant around the front door and that of her neighbour had come away and that rain was getting underneath. The landlord had carried out no repairs since this inspection. A contractor attended on 3 May 2024 to see what works were needed.
    4. The landlord had provided her with garden storage to enable her to clear the understairs cupboard. Her belongings had been damaged. She was unable to put anything on the floor without it getting mouldy.
    5. Her upstairs neighbour told her that they had a leak which had been ongoing for a year. The landlord had just repaired this. She believed that this had been coming into her property.
    6. She said that this was affecting her health. She had COPD and asthma. Further she was no longer able to sleep in her bedroom as the carpet was wet. She was sleeping in her living room, as this room was not as wet.
    7. She said that she was unable to have her grandchildren visit due to the damp and mould in her home. She said that the situation was getting worse and she wanted the landlord to act.
  7. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 6 June 2024. On the 7 June 2024 its wellbeing team passed the monitoring of the repairs to the landlord’s complaint works coordinators due to the formal complaint.
  8. The contractor attended on 7 June 2024 and installed ‘damp rods’ to the rear of the building. It was unable to gain access to the neighbouring property to access the guttering and would arrange to return. It said that it further works were needed as the connection on the rear soil stack was leaking. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 13 June 2024 about a leak from the flat above. She highlighted her health concerns. On 14 June 2024 the resident called the landlord to ask for an alternative to the dehumidifier it had given her. She said this was affecting her health and she asked the landlord to provide a wet/dry vacuum. The landlord’s records show that it collected the dehumidifier on 18 June 2024.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 June 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident. It set out the timeframe of its actions. It said that it had approved works to her home and that these were due to start on 17 June 2024. It said that its works coordinators would track and monitor the repairs “to ensure that these go ahead as planned and are completed to your satisfaction”.  It upheld her complaint. It offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill for the time trouble and inconvenience she had experienced.
  10. The resident replied to the landlord on 18 June 2024 explaining her dissatisfaction with its response and asked it to escalate her complaint. She contacted the landlord on 24 June 2024 to ask it again to provide her with a wet/dry vacuum to deal with the damp in her carpets. It passed her request between its housing and maintenance teams. In its internal record’s the landlord recorded that it did not supply wet/dry vacuum’s but that it could arrange for its estates team to clean the resident’s carpets. There is no evidence that it did this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 27 June 2024.
  11. The resident chased the landlord and its contractors on 28 June and 3 July 2024. An email was sent internally by the landlord on 3 July 2024. This asked that ownership be taken to coordinate the repairs, its wellbeing team being unable to take the case back as it was now with complaints. It recorded the resident’s health conditions and that she was sleeping in her living room due to the extent of the dampness. Further it noted that she “has been told by an electrician that she must not use her hoover on the carpets due to the amount of water in them”.
  12. On 16 July 2024 it wrote to the resident to say that it required a further 20 days to investigate her complaint. The resident continued to chase the landlord and contractor for updates on the works to her home. On 8 August 2024 the surveyor provided details of his inspection of the property and asked the contractor to quote for internal works, including checking for internal leaks. On 9 August 2024 the resident contacted to say that no one had attended her property since 7 June 2024 and that the issue of damp remained. She made further contact with the landlord through August and September.
  13. On 18 September 2024 the resident followed up her complaint as she had not received a reply. She said that the ongoing situation was affecting her health, and she still was unable to use her bedroom. She had to dispose of damaged belongings and her family were unable to visit her. The landlord responded on 24 September 2024 to say that it had noted her comments, but it would take a further 20 working days to respond to her complaint.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience experienced by the resident and thanked her for her patience. It said that it appreciated the situation was frustrating and had taken her personal circumstances on board. It set out the actions it had taken and what it was going to do. It said:
    1. It acknowledged that there had been an error in its stage 1 reply. It had incorrectly said that its contractor had attended on 12 April 2024 to apply a damp treatment when they had attended to assess the damp. It apologised for its error.
    2. It had failed to provide its stage 2 response within the extended deadline it set on 16 July 2024. It apologised for the lack of communication through its complaint handling process.
    3. It set out the actions it had taken following her report of damp on 13 February 2024. It said that it had completed a full damp inspection on 19 April 2024 and approved works on 24 May 2024 for a damp proof course (DPC) injection to the rear of the property. Its contractor initially attended on 7 June 2024 but “due to a material delay” and issues with access to the guttering it needed to return. It had completed the work by the end of June 2024.
    4. It provided the resident with dehumidifiers on 13 June 2024. It collected these after a few days due to the resident’s health concerns. She had asked the landlord to provide a wet/dry vacuum as an alternative, but this was not something the landlord would provide.
    5. It noted the concerns she had raised about the damp proof work and had spoken with its contractor. The contractor confirmed on 10 July 2024 that it had completed all the external work (phase 1). It would carry out phase 2 once the property was dry. The surveyor and contractor carried out a follow up inspection on 7 August 2024. Its contractor had provided a quote for further works which it approved in September 2024. The contractor attended on 30 September 2024 to do the work. These included applying a damp proof membrane and new vinyl to the kitchen floor and checking for plumbing leaks.
    6. On 16 October 2024 the resident told it that it had not completed the checks for leaks in her home. It had raised an order for a specialist to carry out these inspections and its surveyor was schedule to reattend with the housing officer on 4 November 2024. Additionally, it had arranged for a mould wash treatment to the understairs cupboard on 13 November 2024.
    7. It understood her frustration and the impact on her living conditions. Its records showed that “significant efforts have been made to address these concerns, and all current work is marked as complete, I understand that this may still feel unresolved from your perspective”.
    8. It upheld her complaint. As “a gesture of goodwill” it offered the resident a total of £1172. It broke this down as:
      1. £250 for time trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £250 for complaint handling.
      3. £622 for loss of enjoyment from February to September.
      4. £50 contribution towards damaged items.
    9. “If the upcoming surveyor visit reveals any underlying issues affecting the floors and carpets, I am open to reconsidering a contribution toward cleaning or replacement of the carpets”. It asked the resident to let it know if this was the case.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 4 and 6 November 2024. He initially attended with the housing officer and then with another surveyor. On 5 November 2024 a specialist damp survey was carried out on behalf of the landlord. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2024 as she was unhappy with its response to her complaint. She also asked that it cancel the order to provide a mould wash to her hall cupboard as she felt this would cover up the issue rather than finding the source.
  2. On 16 January 2025 the landlord raised an order for further works to the resident’s home. This was as an outcome to its inspection in November 2024. An electrician carried out an inspection on 11 February 2025. Its report noted the presence of damp in the property and that there was evidence of corrosion. It recorded that the electrics were safe to use but “will only deteriorate if the cause of the damp is not identified and treated”. On 7 March 2025 a CCTV inspection of the drainage running underneath the property was carried out. This found issues within the pipework including a crack and sitting water.
  3. The resident told this service on 24 June 2025 that the issues of damp within her home remain, and that she is still sleeping in her living room. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on 3 July 2025. His report found high levels of moisture to the flooring, rising damp, and a lack of damp proof membrane (DPM) at the property. It also noted corrosion to a socket in the living room and that the consumer unit was in the hall cupboard affected by rising damp. It said that it would draw up a schedule of works. It gave no timescales for this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:b. the resident’s concerns about the safety of the electrics in her property.
  3. Having first raised her complaint in June 2024; she did not explicitly include a complaint about the safety of her electrics. Her concerns were about the presence of damp and mould within her home and the actions taken by the landlord to deal with this. The landlord did not consider her concerns about the electrics in her home as part of its complaint process. Following a direct request from the resident, the landlord raised a works order on 6 February 2025 to check the electrics. It completed an inspection on 11 February 2025. This was after the conclusion of the landlord’s formal complaints process.
  4. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  5. Given the above, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained to the Service that her home is still damp and that she has been unable to sleep in her bedroom since June 2024. Given the condition of her home, as it is both damp and musty, she has been unable to have her grandchildren to visit and has said that this has left her feeling isolated. This has had a negative impact on both her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of wastewater, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure, together with its repair’s handbook provides guidance on the responsibility for repairs within a resident’s property. It has 3 categories of repair with the following target times:
    1. emergency repairs – 24 hour target to attend and make safe.
    2. appointed repairs – 28 working day target for completion of the repair.
    3. planned repairs – these are works that will take longer than 28 days. This will not include work where there are health and safety concerns. It allows the landlord to group together repairs needed within a block or across an estate.
  4. The procedure sets out how the landlord will receive and record repairs. Further it says that where it needs to inspect to identify the repairs needed, an inspection appointment will be raised within 10 working days of it receiving the report.
  5. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the need for a prompt response by landlords to reports of damp and mould. The report set out that “landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to residents so their expectations can be managed”.
  6. The landlord introduced its damp, mould, and condensation policy in May 2024. It also completed an assessment of its approach considering the recommendation within our spotlight report. It sets out its commitment to tackling damp and mould in its homes and a “zero-tolerance approach”. It says that it will diagnose the problem at an early stage and work with the resident to remedy the situation quickly. Further it will ensure that its team has the skills and knowledge to tackle this issue effectively and tailor its approach to meet the residents’ needs. It says that it recognises the impact that damp and mould may have on health and this underpins its policy and procedure in how it will prioritise and support its residents. This policy links to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure.
  7. The landlord has a Vulnerable Customers Procedure. Under this is has set up a wellbeing team as part of its property services hub responsible for tracking repairs through to completion and keeping vulnerable customers up to date throughout.
  8. The landlord has a 2 stage Complaints Procedure that is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It has a 2 stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It says that where it cannot provide a full response within this time, it may extend this by no more than 20 working days. It is to keep the customer up to date throughout.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home

  1. The resident first reported damp and mould to her housing officer in February 2024. She has told us that the issues she raised remained in May 2025. Her initial report was referred to the landlord’s maintenance team to investigate. There was a delay of 2 months before the surveyor inspected the property on 19 April 2024. This does not align with the landlord’s policy to diagnose the problem at an early stage or to arrange an inspection within 10 working days of a report. While its damp and mould procedure does not have clear deadlines for it to act and inspection target is set within its repairs and maintenance policy.
  2. The surveyor recorded the following findings from their inspection.
    1. There appeared to be a leak on pipework as it passed through the walls of the resident’s flat.
    2. The trickle vents were not functioning.
    3. There was no damp proof course.
    4. The kitchen floor was damaged due to recurring damp.
    5. Damp meter readings showed that there were damp areas of floor and wall directly next to the bathroom on both kitchen and bedroom side.
  3. Following this inspection, it asked its contractor to provide a quote for the works needed. This it received on 17 May 2024 and approved on 24 May 2024. The contractor had quoted to do the works in 2 phases, with the initial quote focused on external works. These were to inject a chemical damp proof course and clear guttering and downpipes. The landlord raised a works order for the internal works on 27 August 2024. This was despite the surveyor noting that there appeared to be leaking pipework within the property. This approach led to significant delays in the landlord acting to resolve the issues affecting the resident’s home, with internal repairs raised 6 months after her first report that her carpets were wet to the touch. This was a significant failure by the landlord in its handling of the reported damp and mould.
  4. Furthermore, the resident raised concerns about the effectiveness of the works that the contractor had done in June 2024. She said that the contractor had not injected a chemical damp proof course but had instead installed damp rods. There is no evidence that the surveyor carried out a post inspection of the works before raising the follow on works in August 2024. The surveyor revisited the property on 4 November 2024 with the housing officer as an outcome to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  5. On 8 May 2024 the landlord provided the resident with external storage in her garden for the belongings that had been in her hall cupboard. While it was positive that the landlord acted to provide this for the resident, it did not address the underlying issue of damp within the space and her flat more widely.
  6. The landlord supplied a dehumidifier in early June after it attended to a leak from the upstairs flat. The resident told the landlord that the dehumidifier was affecting her health, and it collected this on 18 June 2024. The resident asked for an alternative means to dry her carpets. After referring her request between departments, the landlord declined to provide the wet/dry vacuum she had asked for. Internally it noted that it could get its estates team to help but there is no evidence that it progressed this further. The landlord did not provide an effective solution to dry out the resident’s home that met her specific needs.
  7. A second surveyor completed a stock condition surveyor on 28 August 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence of the outcome of this survey. An external contractor completed a specialist damp survey on 5 November 2024. This made several recommendations, but the landlord did not raise a works order based on these. It raised a new works order to its main contractor to carry out further works based on the inspection of its surveyor. It is unclear why the specialist inspection was carried out and why the landlord did not act on its recommendations. There appears to have been a failure in coordination of inspections at the resident’s home and to consider all the findings made.
  8. There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within her home. These were categorised by a lack of oversight by its surveyor in respect of the works carried out by its contractor. When the resident raised her concern about the quality of the work the landlord did not carry out an inspection of these and accepted the contractor’s word that it had completed the works, despite the resident saying that this was not the case. Furthermore, where specialist inspections were done, there is limited evidence that the landlord acted on the findings of these.
  9. The resident has had to make significant effort to pursue updates from the landlord. It did not act on her concerns about the quality of the work carried out and give little regard to her health. Our spotlight report on damp and mould highlighted the need for residents to be kept informed. It recommended that landlords should “ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
  10. There was a lack of ownership and decision making within the landlord’s staff, with hand offs between teams. The landlord’s wellbeing team initially tracked the repairs, but when the resident raised a complaint, it handed this over to it works coordinators. The resident’s request for a wet/dry vacuum to remove the water within her carpets was passed between the housing and maintenance teams before deciding this was not something the landlord would provide. It then failed to take any action to support the resident in this.
  11. In her formal complaint to the landlord, the resident said that she was unable to sleep in her bedroom due to the level of damp in the room. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses at either stage. The resident raised this again with the landlord when she contacted it on 21 October 2024. She said she was unable to use her bedroom and that the damp was affecting her health. An internal referral raised the question of whether it should temporarily move the resident. Again, there is a lack of ownership with a hand off between the housing officer and the surveyor about making such a decision.
  12. The surveyor said that its contractor had completed all the work to the property. This was despite a lack of inspection by the surveyor since April 2024. It agreed a visit on 4 November 2024 to “monitor air quality and more damp readings, possibly thermal camera”. Further it said, “I think customer smokes in the property, and we may need to install additional ventilation to compensate for this”. There is no evidence that following its visit on 4 November 2024 that it considered a temporary move for the resident or that it discussed this with her. It did not consider the impact of the property condition on the resident. It is also unclear why its surveyor referred to the resident smoking in the property. While this may increase condensation, its records show that it found no condensation through any of its inspections.
  13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “where a property is found to be habitable, but the customer is concerned that their individual situation or vulnerabilities means that [it] is not habitable or safe for them, the housing officer will be asked to assess … needs and the works required …” It would have been reasonable to expect the housing officer to advocate on behalf of the resident, given that it was aware of her health condition and to make recommendations around a possible temporary move. Instead, there was an acceptance of the surveyor’s assessment. This was a failure to act in line with its own procedures. An order has been made for the landlord to review this position with the resident. The introduction of Awaab’s Law will place a responsibility on the landlord to “secure the provision of suitable alternative accommodation…”. This applies where the landlord has been unable to remedy the identified damp and mould within a set timescale.
  14. There was a failure of ownership by the landlord and to ensure that works were completed in a reasonable timeframe. The issues faced by the resident remain ongoing to date, 17 months after she first reported damp in her home. Her belongings remain stored in the garden, and she continues to sleep in the living room. These failures amount to severe maladministration by the landlord.
  15. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s own compensation guidance and its own guidance on remedies in making an order for an additional amount of compensation. This recognises both the loss of amenity to the resident and the level of inconvenience and disruption caused to her.
  16. In calculating the compensation award the Service has considered the loss of amenity to the resident as she was unable to sleep in her bedroom or use the internal storage within her hall. It is noted that the landlord compensated the resident for “loss of enjoyment” for the period February to September. The period used for the calculation is from September 2024 to July 2025, as the situation is still ongoing. We have considered her loss of amenity for a period of 10 months. Based on her average monthly rent, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £1217.00 compensation.
  17. This figure has been calculated as 30% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
  18. A further award of £800 has been made in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident while the damp and mould remained in her home. Together with £400 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue the landlord for updates both in terms of the repairs and her complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first raised her complaint on 3 June 2024, and the landlord responded on 17 June 2024. This was within its published target of 10 working days. It responded to the issues raised by the resident and apologised for the inconvenience caused, upholding her complaint. It said that it had approved the works to her home but did not provide any detail of these. It further said that its works coordination team would track the works and ensure that it completed these to her satisfaction. While this was a positive response, it failed to respond to the resident informing it that she was unable to use her bedroom. As there was no detail given of the works that would be done it was unclear if these would address this issue.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint the following day, on 18 June 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within 5 working days. 20 working days after receiving her escalated complaint, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it needed a further 20 days to investigate her complaint. It wrote to her again on 24 September 2024 extending its response time for a further 20 working days. There is no evidence that either extension was agreed with the resident. Its stage 2 complaint response was provided on 31 October 2024, 97 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint. This was a significant failure in the landlord’s complaint handing as it did not meet its published response time.
  3. There is little evidence that the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident through the complaints process. The resident was left chasing repairs with the landlord without response. Given the seriousness of the resident’s complaint there was a failure to track the repairs. There was a lack of clarity around the works that the landlord was undertaking and how these would address the issues that the resident had reported. It again failed to address the resident’s report that she was unable to sleep in her bedroom and her report of the impact on her health.
  4. The Code says that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint” and that “if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.” The landlord did not comply with these requirements. It overlooked the resident’s reports that areas of her home were uninhabitable and that these were having a detrimental effect on her health.
  5. In summary, there was a significant delay in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and a failure to follow its complaint’s policy timescales. Its letter did not show a suitable level of empathy with the resident’s situation. While this said that it understood her frustration and the impact on her living conditions, it went on to say that it had made significant effort to address her concerns. As is set out in the section above, the evidence provided by the landlord does not support this statement. There was also a failure to consider her complaint in full or propose immediate action to remedy her living situation. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
  6. The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation for the failure in its complaint handling was not proportionate to the extended delay in its response and the time and trouble to the resident in repeatedly chasing the landlord for a response.
  7. The landlord’s failure to comply with its complaints policy timescales and significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint amounts to maladministration. This Service has made an order for additional compensation below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the electrics in the property being corroded is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings, in line with the Service’s Guidance on Remedies. This should be sent from its chief executive.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2467.00 compensation calculated as follows:
      1. £1217.00 for loss of amenity.
      2. £850 for distress and inconvenience caused by the extended period over which the damp has remained in her home.
      3. £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to pursue the landlord.
      4. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
      5. This is in addition to the compensation of £1322.00 offered by the landlord through its complaint stages.
    3. The landlord should make a further offer of compensation for the period from 1 July 2025 to the completion of all repairs to the resident’s home. It should include within this the replacement of the resident’s carpets, in line with the outcome from its stage 2 complaint.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Ensure that it has completed all outstanding repairs to the resident’s home. It must undertake a further inspection of the resident’s home to document all repairs that are now outstanding and provide a clear action plan to the resident as to the repairs it will carry out and the dates on which it will complete these. This should include redecorating any areas of décor damaged by the damp and mould and replacing the areas of flooring damaged.
    2. While works are ongoing within the resident’s home, the landlord should discuss with the resident the provision of alternative accommodation. While the resident may not wish to be temporarily moved it should provide evidence that it has considered this and discussed it with her.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Undertake a full review of its handling of the repairs in this case. It should identify where and why delays occurred. It should also consider how these could have been better managed to ensure completion within a more reasonable timeframe, highlighting any changes required to its internal processes to ensure that better outcomes are achieved in the future. As part of this review, it should also consider how it responds to vulnerable residents. The landlord should share with the Service the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord complete an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) of the property to provide reassurance to the resident of the safety of the electrics within her home. It should prioritise any recommended remedial works that arise from this and ensure that these are completed within 2 weeks of the report.