Sanctuary Housing Association (202404880)

Decision
Case ID	202404880
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her children. The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. Shortly after moving into the property through a mutual exchange in October 2022, the resident reported a number of repairs to the landlord including damp and mould. The landlord replaced the kitchen in March 2024, reinstalled the flooring in December 2023 and completed some repairs to the fencing in November 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Staff conduct.
   2. Repairs to the kitchen, damp, and mould.
   3. Repairs to the fencing.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The complaint about staff conduct is outside of our jurisdiction.
4. There was reasonable redress offered during the landlord’s internal process in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the kitchen, damp, and mould.
   2. The complaint.
5. There was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fencing.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

6. The complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process.

Kitchen, damp, and mould

7. While there were additional failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs which it did not recognise during its process, its total offer of redress was proportionate to all of its failings we have identified in this investigation. The offer appropriately addressed the high effort, time, and trouble taken by the resident around the issues.

Repairs to the fencing

8. The landlord delayed substantially in completing the repairs, and this led to the resident taking time and trouble to ensure it resolved the issue. This caused her inconvenience and her repeatedly raising the issue with the landlord. It failed to consider the vulnerabilities in the household, and the compensation offered during its process was insufficient.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It did not recognise several expressions of dissatisfaction by the resident and there were concerns with its communication. It also raised a new complaint about the fencing when it should have considered it as part of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Its total offer of redress was however sufficient, around the failings.

 

 

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 December 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident £470 for its handling of the repairs to the fence. This is inclusive of its £170 offer in its complaint response of 12 December 2023. If it has already paid this to the resident, it should subtract this from the total outstanding. That means a sum of £300 is payable. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has paid.	No later than 08 December 2025
3	Repair order   The landlord must evidence to us that it has either completed the repairs to the fence as stated in its email of October 2025. If the repair remains outstanding, it must provide the resident with a schedule of works detailing when it aims to complete the outstanding repair.	No later than 08 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

 

Our recommendation
If it remains outstanding, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered across its complaint responses, namely £2,052 in its stage 2 response of 20 March 2024.
Speak with the resident and arrange an inspection of the property to find any outstanding issues with the repairs to the kitchen, and damp and mould in the property.
Speak with the resident and identify if she wishes to raise a further complaint about any outstanding issues.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 December 2022 to 10 May 2023	The resident complained about the landlord’s staff conduct on 28 December 2022. On the day, the landlord noted that she had raised her concerns about the repair issues in the property related to the kitchen. She chased an update in February and April 2023 and added to her concerns the landlord’s handling of her reports of repairs to the fence, tap leak, and damp and mould. The resident then raised another complaint on 10 May 2023 both about the repair issues, and her staff conduct concerns from December 2022.
22 May 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response about the staff conduct complaint and escalation information.
23 May 2023	The Landlord provided stage 1 “interim” response about the damp and mould, kitchen, and fence. It said it had attended the property in February 2023, and the operative had done a mould wash. Due to the resident’s reports that the mould returned it had arranged an inspection which would also assess the kitchen. It said she had not reported the kitchen before, and it had raised a repair to the fencing around the front steps.
25 May 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint about the repairs at stage 1 and said it would respond within 20 working days.
29 May 2023	The landlord provided at around 7 am in the morning another interim response where it reiterated its statement from 23 May 2023. At around lunchtime the same day, it provided its stage 1 “final” response. It acknowledged it had not resolved the issues within the timeframes in its policy and apologised. It confirmed it had scheduled the repairs for completion on 9 August 2023. It also planned to carry out the damp and kitchen inspection on 20 June 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress caused. It offered £150 as a goodwill gesture for the distress and inconvenience.
7 August 2023 to 16 November 2023	The parties continued to communicate. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 7 August due to works being postponed, concerns about safety due to the fence, and health impact caused by the mould to her child. She told the landlord she had a disability, and it needed to resolve the issue as soon as possible and not in November 2023 as it intended to. The landlord issued the resident with “stage 1 updates” between 11 August 2023 and 30 October 2023 with information around the appointments. She remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate her complaint on 16 November 2023. She confirmed mould works had been completed but the landlord had only repaired part of the fence.
12 December 2023	The landlord provided a stage 1 response around the fencing issue. It explained the timeline of the fencing issue and rescheduled appointments due to operative sickness. It said it had marked the fence as completed, however, it had booked a further appointment for 5 March 2024 to replace the rest of the fence. It apologised for the delays and said it had emailed its planning team to see if it could bring the appointment forward. It offered the resident compensation of £170 (£150 for the overall time, trouble and inconvenience caused, and £20 for the 2 missed appointments).
20 March 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It noted it closed the complaint on 13 June 2023 and reopened it on 11 August 2023. It said that it had addressed the staff conduct and fencing concerns in separate complaints and upheld the complaint about the damp and kitchen issues. It confirmed it had completed the damp, and mould works in November 2023, but the mould returned in the downstairs toilet. It said it had raised an order on 27 December 2023 for works to the kitchen. To acknowledge delays, poor communication, and the impact on the resident, it offered £2,052 compensation and explained that as per its policy, it would offset the compensation against any rent arrears. It broke its offer down as: £400 for inconvenience. £400 for poor complaint handling. £1,252 for loss of enjoyment of the home between February 2023 and April 2024 (when it planned to complete the outstanding repairs).
17 May 2024 to 28 October 2024	The resident told us she wanted the landlord to honour its compensation offer and pay this directly to her. She argued its policy of offsetting compensation against arrears was unfair, as she only had arrears due to the landlord’s way of processing her rent and universal credit payments. She said she wanted all outstanding repairs completed, a revised offer of compensation, and for the landlord to pay this to her directly and not offset it against her rent account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

10. We understand that the resident raised her complaint about staff conduct in December 2022, and then again on 10 May 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint on 22 May 2023 at stage 1 of its process. It further explained in its stage 2 response to the other complaint that it had provided this response. While the resident  raised the issue with us in bringing her complaint for our investigation, we have seen no evidence she escalated the matter with the landlord at the time or that it exhausted its complaint’s process. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, and fully investigate and where we have seen no failure within its complaints process. Therefore, we will not look at the staff conduct concerns.

Complaint	Repairs to the kitchen, damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

Kitchen

11. The landlord said to us it had completed kitchen repairs in April 2024, but the resident raised concerns about poor workmanship. The landlord confirmed to us that it responded in January 2025 to these concerns, but the resident disputed completion of works. As the resident raised a new complaint, these recent events will not form part of this investigation. We reviewed events between October 2022 and April 2024.
12. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised kitchen concerns in October 2022, and it completed repairs in April 2024, but the landlord calculated its compensation for loss of enjoyment from February 2023. The landlord’s records show delays and unclear communication about its decisions to raise repairs, and we would expect it to provide clear information and explanations to residents. For example, it did not explain why compensation started in February 2023, and whether the resident’s comment to its contractor, seen in its records from December 2022, that she would request a new kitchen, affected timelines for its compensation calculation.
13. The landlord’s records show that on 2 December 2022, the resident reported inadequate food storage and preparation space. The landlord did not show it considered these concerns under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which was inappropriate given food safety is 1 of the 29 hazards under the system. The landlord’s own findings led to installing cupboards and worktops, indicating the facilities were inadequate. The failure to show it took such considerations was inappropriate.

Damp and mould

14. The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her child’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it lasted. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her property on 2 February 2023. The evidence provided shows that the landlord attended and completed the works identified. The resident also confirmed it completed the damp, and mould works on 16 November 2023. The resident then explained that the mould returned in her downstairs toilet worse than previously in January 2024. We do not have any evidence to suggest that the returning mould in the bathroom was related to the previous reason for the issue, as such our investigation of this issue will be between February 2023 and 16 November 2023.
16. The landlord’s records show that the resident raised damp and mould concerns with the landlord on 2 February 2023. Although the landlord completed works on 16 November 2023, which the resident also confirmed, it delayed inspection by 7 months, between February 2023 and September 2023. This far exceeds the 28 day repair timeframe in its repairs policy. Following the damp and mould survey on 6 September 2023, the issue then continued for over 2 months before the landlord resolved the concern, a further delay. This was not in line with its stated zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, within its damp and mould policy. It also has not provided a reason for the delay or shown that it explained this to the resident.
17. The resident told us on 27 October 2025 that she had reported over the telephone that mould affected multiple rooms and her child’s health, including the need for a steroid inhaler. We have however seen no record of this. Despite this, the landlord was aware of the issue, and the fact that there were children in the property. It did not reassess its approach or consider the household’s vulnerabilities. It also failed to evaluate whether it needed to temporarily move the resident, as outlined in its compensation policy. We would also expect it to consider whether the property remained habitable, especially as the HHSRS regards damp and mould as potential category 1 hazards. Its failure to take such considerations was unreasonable.
18. However, the landlord’s damp and mould survey in September 2023 did not identify the bedrooms as unusable. It also did not recommend a temporary move or that the resident could not remain in the property. As such, the evidence is not suggestive of a significant health and safety risk caused by the damp and mould to the resident.

Conclusion

19. There were clear failings in how the landlord handled both kitchen and damp and mould issues. Delays, poor communication, and lack of consideration for health and safety standards caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The prolonged nature of the issues also affected her enjoyment of the property. The landlord acknowledged these failings and offered £1,652 in compensation, which is broadly reasonable and proportionate for the distress and inconvenience (£400), and loss of enjoyment of the property (£1,252). Its offer was in line with its compensation policy, as it appropriately considered the time, trouble, and inconvenience faced by the resident. It recognised the landlord’s failure to follow its policies and recognised the high effort and impact of its failings on the resident.
20. However, it did not clearly explain how it arrived at the 20% figure used in calculating the rent reduction for loss of enjoyment. Nor did it show that it considered whether the kitchen was uninhabitable. Nevertheless, the compensation reflects the substantial impact on the resident and shows the landlord’s recognition of its significant failings, and this was appropriate. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failure that had caused considerable impact for prolonged periods of time.

Complaint	Repairs to the fencing
Finding	Maladministration

21. On 2 March 2024 in its stage 2 complaint response about the fence, the landlord said that it had dealt with this issue under a different complaint response. However, we have seen evidence of the resident raising this as part of her complaint on 10 May 2023 which she escalated in November 2023. It is unclear why the landlord raised a new complaint, and responded with a new stage 1 response on 12 December 2023, in relation to the fencing issue. This is especially because it had responded to it on 23 and 29 May 2023 at stage 1. The resident’s concern related to the ongoing delays and outstanding works. We view this as a complaint handling failure, which we will comment on further within the complaint handling section. As such, we shall consider the landlord’s handling of the fence repairs.
22. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised concerns about the fence on 2 February 2023. The landlord inspected it on 27 February 2023 and scheduled repairs but failed to attend due to staff sickness. It rescheduled the appointment for August 2023. Meanwhile, the resident reported on 20 April 2023 that her child fell through the fence and described it as dangerous on 24 May 2023, urging the landlord to act sooner. Further the landlord was aware the resident lived with a disability and she told us she used the fence as a support due to her disability. It would have been reasonable for it to have been inquisitive and identify whether the fencing issues led to any concerns around her disabilities.
23. Despite these warnings, the landlord did not reassess the urgency or consider the household’s vulnerabilities. Children and elderly residents are more susceptible to injury, and such hazards fall under the HHSRS. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a risk assessment or considered temporary safety measures or alternative contractors, to ensure it quickly resolved the issue. These were different opportunities provided by the resident for the landlord to reconsider its position, and it has not shown that it did so. Its actions were unreasonable.
24. The landlord’s records explain that it completed part of the repairs on 1 November 2023 and scheduled the remaining work for 5 March 2024. It offered £170 compensation in its complaint response of 12 December 2023 and acknowledged missed appointments, but this was not proportionate given the issue persisted for 9 months between 2 February 2023 and 1 November 2023 when it completed half the works, a delay of over 8 months. The issue then remained outstanding until at least March 2024, a total of over 13 months. This is well beyond its 28 day repair policy. Furthermore, there is a dispute of whether and when it completed the repairs. The resident told us that the fence remained outstanding in October 2024, though the landlord told us in October 2025 that it had completed the replacement in March 2024. We have however seen evidence within the landlord’s records of the resident chasing the fence repairs in June 2024 and internal correspondence it did not complete the full fence replacement on 5 March 2024. As we have seen no evidence to support that we are not satisfied that it completed the fence repair  in March 2024.
25. The delays were not in keeping with the timeframe in the landlord’s repairs policy. If replacing the fence meant a delay to the necessary works, we would expect the landlord to explain this to the resident. We cannot see that it did, and this was unreasonable and raises further concerns with its communication both with the resident and with us. The prolonged delay, poor communication, and failure to address safety concerns represent serious service failures. The landlord’s response and offer of compensation did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident or the extent of its failings.
26. Its failings adversely affected her family and continued for a substantial period of time. It failed to address the detriment to the resident and her family, provide explanation of its handling of the full repair or demonstrate any learning taken. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident added compensation and evidence it has completed the repair or provide a schedule of works detailing proposed completion date for the repair.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

27. At stage 2 of its process the landlord acknowledged delays, quality concerns with the stage 1 responses, and poor communication, and offered £400 compensation. While this was appropriate, it failed to recognise other key issues in its complaint handling.
28. The resident expressed dissatisfaction multiple times such as on 20 April 2023 and August 2023, following its stage 1 response, regarding delayed appointments for fence repairs. It missed opportunities to clarify whether, she looked to raise a new complaint in April 2023, or if she wished to escalate her complaint in August 2024. Its failure to do so was not in line with its complaint policy around recognising expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints, or the Complaint Handling Code.
29. The landlord provided an interim response to the resident’s complaint on 23 May 2024 and on the 29 May 2024. Both responses provided identical and repetitive information the resident was already aware of. It also provided one of the responses on the same day it provided the stage 1 response. Its approach with the interim responses was confusing as they did nothing to further the handling of the situation, or the complaint.
30. When the resident formally requested escalation on 16 November 2023, the landlord incorrectly opened a new complaint about the same issue (fencing), rather than progressing the existing complaint which also dealt with her fencing concerns. This caused confusion and showed poor record keeping, as the resident had not requested a new complaint. Although it issued another stage 1 response on 12 December 2023, it did not follow up with a stage 2 response, despite ongoing concerns, and said it had dealt with it previously. This was inappropriate and inconsistent with good complaint handling practice.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy allows up to £250 for significant delays and poor communication. Its offer of £400 exceeded this. While the landlord did find some failings, we found additional ones, but overall, the offer was proportionate to the full extent of its failings. It addresses the resident’s difficulties with raising her complaint, its delayed responses, and poor quality correspondence, which were not in line with its policy.
32. The resident also objected to the landlord offsetting the compensation against her rent arrears. She said the landlord’s error caused the arrears. However, we have seen no evidence of this. The landlord’s policy clearly states it can offset goodwill compensation against arrears, so its actions were in line with its policy. If the resident believes the landlord’s error and the way it processed rent payments caused the arrears, she may need to address this through a separate complaint.

Learning

33. The landlord should take learning about its consideration of the entire household’s vulnerabilities and disabilities when dealing with repairs, damp, and mould issues. This may inform whether its usual approach is appropriate for the situation or if it needs to take specific action away from this to ensure it completes repairs promptly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord should cross reference its systems to have a full overview of the resident’s concerns and existing concerns so it does not miss to review significant evidence or duplicate its responses. Its repairs log was also not fully descriptive which may have been affected by the format in which it provided the records to us.

Communication

35. The landlord should have a proactive communication with its residents to keep them appropriately informed and updated. It should also have proper mechanisms for escalating delays with its operatives and contractors, to facilitate prompt escalation of concerns, and responses to delays.