Sanctuary Housing Association (202441504)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441504

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 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.

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder since 2011. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. He lives in the property with his wife and 3 children, 1 of whom suffers with asthma.
  2. On 16 April 2024, the resident reported damp in the property which he felt was because of a structural issue. On 23 April 2024, the landlord surveyed the property. It found a number of internal issues causing condensation, damp, and mould. A number of recommendations were made including mould washes, redecorating, installation of extractor fans, and a replacement radiator.
  3. On 23 October 2024, the resident raised a complaint. He said that that the landlord had failed to carry out the agreed works. He said that he thought that the damp in his property was because of a structural issue and it was now affecting is son’s asthma.
  4. On 8 November 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It noted that the resident raised concerns about external works required to resolve damp inside the property. It said that it surveyed the property and found no external water ingress and recommended that the resident install extractor fans. The landlord advised the resident that he was responsible for internal decorations and damp works.
  5. On 15 January 2025, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord’s position was an abuse of its responsibilities as the freeholder of the building. He reported that the living conditions were unacceptable and had a particularly detrimental impact on the health of his 7-year-old who had asthma.
  6. On 12 March 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that following a survey on 23 April 2024, the landlord initially intended to complete the recommended works but subsequently identified that it was not responsible for the works. It said that if the resident chose for it to install the extractor fans, the costs would be recharged to the resident. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 19 March 2025 to assess ongoing issues and confirmed that it would repair any structural issues if identified. The landlord apologised for the communication failures and signposted the buildings insurers if the resident wants to pursue damage caused to his property. It offered £400 representing the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.

Events after the internal complaints process 

  1. On 19 March 2025, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. It found mould in 1 bedroom, the bathroom, kitchen, living room, and hallway. It found no evidence of moisture from the external elevation penetrating the wall. It recommended a number of repairs including, mould washes, overhauling the circulation vents, and renewing grill fans.
  2. On 30 April 2025, the resident told the landlord that he had not requested extractor fans and they were never required. The resident said that neighbouring properties were experiencing the same issues which indicated that the problem was structural. He accepted the compensation offer of £400 on condition that the landlord completed works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. The resident reported that the damp and mould caused health problems for his son who has asthma. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

  1. Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to maintain and repair the structure and outside parts of the property (such as walls, roofs, windows). This does not include the interior surfaces of those walls within the demise of the resident’s property, which are the resident’s responsibility. These obligations are confirmed in the terms of the lease.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. It does not place an obligation on the landlord to carry out improvement works or works which fall outside the obligations of the lease.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to identify if it had any repair obligations. It found that the damp and mould issues were not structural, however, it initially raised work orders for it to complete the repairs. The landlord subsequently identified that it was not responsible for the works and cancelled the work orders. It failed to confirm its position to the resident until it provided its stage 1 complaint response. This was 7 months after the resident reported the damp. This delay was a service failing which caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord acknowledged this service failing in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £400 to represent the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. It offered to replace the extractor fans and recharge the resident through his service charges. It instructed a further survey of the property which again concluded that the damp was not because of a structural issue. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take to put things right for the resident and to satisfy itself that it was complying with its responsibilities under the terms of the lease agreement.
  5. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified staff who deemed that the damp in the property was not a structural issue. It is noted that the resident disagrees with the findings of the survey and believes that the landlord is responsible for the repairs. However, this investigation identified no evidence to support the resident’s position, for example an independent survey. In the absence of such evidence, this investigation must rely upon the 2 surveys undertaken by the landlord.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because when it identified communication failings it appropriately confirmed its position to the resident and offered compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. 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, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £400 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. A finding of reasonable redress was made based on this offer.
  2. Given the broader welfare concerns and the potential health impacts on the resident’s children it is recommended that the landlord consider signposting the resident to suitable support organisations that might assist the resident in completing the required works.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reinstate its previous offer to complete the works identified in the survey to be repaid through the resident’s service charges.