Sanctuary Housing Association (202408351)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408351

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 June 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since June 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 December 2023. She said:
    1. When using the bathing facilities in her property, water was rising through the carpet in the hallway, creating a large area of wet flooring. She had recently had a new bath and shower pole fitted and some bathroom tiling undertaken. She suspected this was the cause of the leak.
    2. She had reported this over the phone to the landlord earlier the same day (22 December 2023). During the call she was told that the landlord was operating a Christmas emergency service and could not log the repair until 2 January 2024.
    3. She had asked the call handler how long it would take for a plumber to attend if she called on 2 January 2024. She was told 10 days.
    4. She felt the landlord should have categorised the repair as urgent and that it had not considered the damage and stress that would be caused by the leak to her home and her neighbours below.
    5. She wanted the landlord to recategorise the repair as urgent, replace the missing silicone between some particular tiles, fill a hole in a tile that had been left by the contractor, and repair the leak.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 January 2024. It said it was disappointed the repair had not been raised on 22 December 2023 when the resident had reported it. It confirmed the repair should have been raised the same day. The landlord apologised and advised the issue had been escalated to ensure the repair was completed as soon as possible. It offered £125 compensation for the delay in raising the work.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 February 2024. She said the landlord had not responded to an email she had sent on 23 January 2024. She said she was certain that there was water damage and mould underneath the bathtub and lino. She noted that when she had reported the repair on 22 December 2023, the landlord had said that it could not attend until the new year and confirmed that it would take responsibility for the repair and any damage caused. She said her complaint required an in-depth investigation into the service failures she had experienced.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 June 2024. It said:
    1. It was unable to find a record of the call on 22 December 2023 to verify the information the resident had been given. It was sorry she had been informed that her repair would not have been recorded on the system until 2 January 2024. It advised that if she had any further concerns about a leak, its repair centre was open 24 hours per day 365 days per year.
    2. It had asked its customer service centre to raise an order for it to visit and assess the tiles in the bathroom. This would be monitored by the complaints teamwork coordinators.
    3. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted that the leak would likely not have occurred if the work had been completed correctly on 2 November 2023.
    4. It also apologised for the communication issues in the complaints process and the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
    5. It increased its offer of compensation to £750, comprised of:
      1. £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £100 for poor record keeping.
      3. £250 for the complaint handling issues at stages 1 and 2.
  6. On 16 June 2024, the resident told the landlord she was satisfied and in agreement with its investigation summary and that she accepted the offer of compensation. She asked if the assessment of the tiles had been outsourced to a contractor or if its own operatives would attend. She also told it that she needed to access under the bath to clean away the mould, but could not gain access as the previous operative had sealed the panel in place.
  7. The landlord conducted a damp, mould and condensation survey at the property on 17 June 2024. A further inspection of the bathroom took place on 28 June 2024. The operative noted that a surveyor would need to attend and assess under the bath as they were concerned wet rot was forming. A surveyor then visited on 2 July 2024. They advised that the bath panel and wooden plinth under the bath required replacement. The landlord conducted the work on 16 September 2024 and 7 November 2024.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 November 2024 advising she was getting in touch again regarding her complaint. She said:
    1. She had emailed the landlord on 23 January 2024 to advise that an operative had attended to repair the tiles. When they cut away the silicone around the tile, the tile fell off. The board beneath was deteriorated and flaking away. The operative simply scraped the area, refixed the tile and resealed around the bath. The presence of water staining on the board and below the bath indicated the leak had not been repaired.
    2. She wanted her complaint re-opened as the tiling was again coming of the wall and the grout was “crumbling away”.
    3. The shower continued to leak when used, which resulted in water leaking underneath the bathtub and coming up underneath the hallway carpet.
    4. She was concerned that there was a significant amount of mould trapped behind the tiling and bath.
    5. She wanted the landlord to attend and provide a long-term fix to the issue instead of continual short-term fixes.
  9. On 5 December 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s second complaint. It said:
    1. On 15 June 2024 it had responded at stage 2 to another complaint regarding the bathroom. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a complaint could only be investigated once. It had therefore opened a new complaint and considered events from 15 June 2024 onwards.
    2. Its surveyor had visited on 2 July 2024 and had identified that further works were required. The repairs had been raised on 4 July 2024, but due to delays had not been completed until 7 November 2024.
    3. It understood from the resident’s email that she was unhappy with the standard of the work that had been completed. It had asked its repairs team to visit to review the work and undertake any further work necessary.
    4. It upheld the resident’s complaint because the repairs had not been completed to a good standard. It apologised for any additional inconvenience caused.
    5. It offered £100 compensation for the overall impact, including time, trouble and inconvenience.
  10. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and actions, the resident emailed it on 7 and 27 December 2024 but did not receive a response. She then escalated her complaint on 11 March 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2025. It said:
    1. It had completed the replacement of the bath plinth and bath panel on 7 November 2024. The work had been delayed due to stock issues with the bath panel.
    2. In its stage 1 response on 5 December 2024, it had advised that it would arrange a new inspection and that the works coordination team would track progress. It acknowledged that this did not happen and that the resident had not received any communication on the matter.
    3. In emails on 7 and 27 December 2024, the resident had outlined her expectations to resolve her complaint. It apologised that it had not responded to those emails.
    4. It had initially booked follow–on works for 14 January 2025. The resident had asked to reschedule on 13 January 2025. It had then arranged a new appointment for 21 March 2025. The same day, it raised a job to replace old tiles and plasterboard and scheduled it for 14 May 2025.
    5. Its contractor had visited on 17 June 2024 to assess the property for damp mould and condensation. It had not received the report and quote from this survey until December 2024. It had submitted the quote for approval on 13 January 2025 but then cancelled the request because it wanted to conduct the work itself, rather than use a contractor. It had rescheduled the work for 5 February 2025 and was still awaiting the date to be scheduled for completion. It had made an urgent request for this to be followed up. It had been unable to provide the surveyor’s report as this was a contract document between it and the contractor.
    6. It regretted that the repair process had taken longer than expected. It acknowledged the significant delays the resident had experienced and the multiple times she had to pursue the landlord.
    7. It sincerely apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £725 compensation. This was comprised of:
      1. £100 offered as a goodwill gesture at stage 1.
      2. £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      3. £175 for complaint handling.
      4. £150 for future impact, as the work was not scheduled for completion until 31 July 2025.

Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord visited the property on 11 April 2025 and installed ventilation units in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident emailed it on 25 April 2025 asking several questions about the ventilation system installed and the outstanding works. The landlord did not respond to her email.
  2. The landlord visited again on 14 May 2025 and replaced a section of tiling and the plyboard behind the tiles. The resident contacted us on 15 May 2025. She advised the plyboard behind the tiles was in “very poor condition” with significant water staining and cracking. She provided photographs that evidenced her comments. She said she was concerned the damage extended beyond the small section that the landlord had replaced. She wanted it to return and remove all tiles, replace the damaged materials behind, and re–tile the entire area around the bath.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the resident’s complaint, she detailed how she felt the landlord’s inaction had impacted on her mental health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns about her health, we are unable to make a determination about any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A finding relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury insurance claim, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property with dampness and/or high humidity can pose threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths, resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
  3. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. This responsibility is reiterated in the resident’s tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the building, internal walls and the installations for the supply of water and sanitation, including baths.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy and handbook for residents sets out 3 distinct categories of repairs. These are emergency, routine and planned. It defines emergency repairs as those that pose a serious threat to the health and safety of a resident, or to the structure and fabric of their home. The landlord will respond to these within 24 hours of receiving the repair request, but it may need a second appointment to complete works. The policy also states that if a resident telephones the landlord’s customer service centre they will be offered an appointment at first contact.
  5. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident should have been given an appointment when she contacted the customer service centre on 22 December 2023. It is concerning that the call handler apparently considered it acceptable for the resident to have to put up with a leak over the Christmas period. This indicates a lack of understanding of the likely damage that could result as well as of the landlord’s procedures and responsibilities. We acknowledge that the landlord has recognised this failure. However, it has not indicated that it has sought to retrain staff or provide updated guidance to call handlers, which would have been helpful and demonstrated an attempt to take learning from the issue.
  6. On 28 December 2023, the landlord notified its contractor of the leak. The email was marked ‘urgent’ and highlighted concerns that the leak was affecting the flat below. It also stated that the resident had children using the bathing facilities several times per day. In the contractor’s response the same day, it advised that as the leak was “contained” it would contact the resident the following day. It was unreasonable for the contractor to classify the leak as contained. The resident had only 1 bathroom and told the landlord she had young children who used the facilities daily. As she had already been waiting for 6 days at that point, it was unreasonable that a repair was not arranged the day the contractor was made aware.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 3 January 2024, the landlord said that the repair had been escalated to ensure that it was completed as soon as possible. On 4 January 2024, the resident told it that she had still not heard from the contractor. The landlord did not respond until 10 January 2024. This delay in communication was frustrating for the resident and likely left her feeling that the repair was not a priority for the landlord or contractor. In this situation we would have expected the landlord to have contacted the contractor on 4 January 2024 and required a visit without further delay.
  8. The contractor visited on 18 January 2024. In its email on 28 December 2023, the landlord had asked the contractor to raise an emergency repair. In line with the landlord’s policy this required a response within 24 hours. However, in total it was 27 days from when the resident reported the leak before an inspection took place. This was unsatisfactory and significantly outside the requirements of the policy. The delay was frustrating for the resident and caused her and her family inconvenience throughout the period. This frustration was compounded when the operative who conducted the visit advised that the leak was the result of poor workmanship by the previous operative. In situations such as this, we would expect such important information to be fed back to the landlord so that it could conduct its own investigation. We would then expect the landlord to let the resident know that it was aware and was looking into it to reassure her that it took the matter seriously.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2024. She advised it of the poor workmanship that had caused the leak and said that she was concerned that there was further water damage behind the tiles. She said the bathroom always smelled of mould, despite being cleaned regularly and having a working extractor fan. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email. Given the issues and delays that the resident had already experienced, we would have expected the landlord to have contacted her without further delay to acknowledge her concerns. The failure to respond was inappropriate and likely left the resident feeling unheard.
  10. On 15 May 2024, the landlord raised an order for its damp and mould contractor requesting a survey for the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system. It then raised a further order on 15 June 2024 for an inspection to assess the tiles and any damage behind the tiles. It issued its stage 2 response on the same day. It appropriately acknowledged the poor workmanship and apologised. It also said that it had asked its repairs team to assess the situation in the bathroom. The landlord offered £500 compensation for time, trouble and poor record keeping associated with the repair. This was in addition to the £125 that it had offered at stage 1. The landlord’s offer was fair and demonstrated an effort to put things right. On 16 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that she was was satisfied and in agreement with its investigation summary and that she accepted the offer of compensation.
  11. The damp and mould contractor’s inspection took place on 17 June 2024. The surveyor found “light mould” in the hallway and both bedrooms as well as higher than average humidity. Their recommendations were for the installation of a PIV system and undercutting of the internal doors to facilitate air movement throughout the property. The resident pursued the landlord for a copy of the surveyor’s report several times. It advised it could not provide a copy of the report as it was a contract document between it and the contractor. This was unreasonable.
  12. The Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould said that landlords should consider sharing reports with residents to promote openness. The report the landlord provided to this Service did not include any business sensitive information other than the proposed costs of the works. The landlord could easily have redacted this information, as it did with the surveyor’s name when providing the report to us. As the provision of the report is something the resident has continued to pursue, we have made an order for the landlord to provide a copy.
  13. The landlord’s operative visited on 28 June 2024. The notes indicate they requested that a surveyor visit to assess the area under the bath, as they were concerned wet rot was forming. The surveyor attended on 2 July 2024. In an email they advised that the wooden bath frame and bath panel needed replacing. There are no other notes from either inspection to indicate that either the surveyor or operative assessed the area behind the tiles, which the resident was concerned about. The inspection therefore failed to deliver an outcome that she had specifically requested. We would have expected the landlord to have made a full assessment and to have written to the resident detailing the findings of the surveyor’s visit and specifically if there was any suspected damage behind the tiles. Failing to do so was a missed opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence in its processes.
  14. If the landlord had reason not to investigate or inspect something which the resident expected we would expect it to promptly explain its decision and the reason for it. It may be possible that the level of inspection was not warranted, but it should explain this with reference to its relevant policies and procedures
  15. On 2 November 2024, the resident emailed the landlord. She said the grout was again crumbling away from the wall and the bath continued to leak into the hallway. She reiterated her concerns that there was mould trapped behind the tiling and the bath. She said she wanted the landlord to provide a long–term fix to the problem instead of continual short–term fixes. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord did not visit until it was 21 March 2025. We acknowledge that an appointment was arranged for 14 January 2025 that the resident had to reschedule. However, the timeframe was excessive and led to continuing distress, inconvenience and worry about the potential mould buildup in the bathroom.
  16. The resident informed this Service that the operative who visited on 21 March 2025 told her that the entire area around the bath needed to be retiled. The work was then scheduled for 14 May 2025. A timeframe of nearly 2 months, which extended the already lengthy delays. In the meantime, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2025. It apologised for the delays, poor communication and stated that it regretted the that the repairs process had taken longer than expected. It offered £550 compensation for the time, trouble and delay associated with the repairs, which was a reasonable amount
  17. When the landlord returned to conduct the work on 14 May 2025, it only replaced a small amount of plyboard and tiling around the previously defective tile. The poor condition of the plyboard that was removed served to reinforce the resident’s opinion that there was further damage behind the remaining tiles. While we agree that the landlord can rely on the professional competence and opinion of its operatives, it must be able to provide reasoned justification when questioned by residents. In this instance, the landlord has not given the required answers to provide reassurance to the resident that it has properly assessed her concerns. We have made an order to address this below.
  18. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays and poor workmanship that led to the recurrence of the leak. In an attempt to put things right, it also made fair and proportionate offers of compensation that corresponded with its policy. Had the landlord evidenced that it had adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns about the potential damp and mould behind the tiles, we would have made a finding of reasonable redress. Its omission to do so indicates a failure to learn from its earlier mistakes, and ultimately, it has not put things right for the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. While we have not made any orders for additional compensation, we have made an order for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould as well as her email on 25 April 2025.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days. It says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also says that it can extend a response timeframe by a further 10 working days. If it needs additional time, it confirms that it will contact the resident to discuss and explain the reason for the delays.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s 22 December 2023 complaint promptly and within the timescales outlined in its policy. It then acknowledged her escalation request on 22 February 2024, advising it would respond within 20 working days. On 19 March 2024 it told the resident it required more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint but would contact her by 3 April 2024. These actions were again in line with the landlord’s policy and the required timescales.
  3. However, the landlord did not respond on 3 April 2024. The resident emailed it on 9 April 2024. She said she had not heard from it and asked that it explain the delay and inform her when she would receive the response. The landlord responded on 10 April 2024. It said that it would provide the response by 22 April 2024. Unreasonably, it again did not respond when it said it would, which required the resident to expend additional time chasing a response on 27 April 2024. On 29 April 2024, the landlord said her complaint had been passed to a senior complaints officer. If a landlord’s complaint response is going to be delayed, we would expect it to reach out to the complainant and inform them to help manage their expectations. It is not acceptable, as in this case, to miss pre–agreed dates without contacting the affected resident. The landlord’s poor communication was frustrating for the resident and likely caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident chased again on 21 May 2024. There is no evidence the landlord responded to explain the delay or advise when it would issue the response, as required by its policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 June 2024, 80 working days after the resident had escalated the complaint. This significant delay amounted to an additional failure to comply with the requirements of its policy as well as the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
  5. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised and offered £250 compensation for the failures associated with its complaint handling. This was the maximum amount that its policy permitted for complaint handling, which was appropriate.
  6. The resident made her second complaint on 2 November 2025. The landlord took 15 days to acknowledge the complaint. This timeframe was again outside that required by its policy. However, positively, it responded at both stage 1 and 2 within the policy timescales. It also provided detailed responses, outcomes and information that was in line with the Code. Further, it offered compensation in both complaints that aligned with its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. For these reasons we have made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must: 
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the £1,050 it offered for the time, trouble, and delay associated with its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
    3. Inform the resident with reasons why it only replaced a small section of the tiles and supporting plyboard in the bathroom on 14 May 2025. This explanation must include:
      1. Why all tiles and plyboard were not replaced, as was advised to the resident by the operative who visited on 21 March 2025.
      2. Why it believes there is no trapped moisture or mould behind the tiles in the bathroom that requires more extensive exploration or repairs.
    4. Provide the resident with answers to the questions she put to it on 25 April 2025.
    5. Provide to the resident a copy of the report from the survey that took place on 17 June 2024.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the resident the £425 compensation that it offered the resident for its complaint handling failures as this was the basis for our finding of reasonable redress. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.