Sanctuary Housing Association (202419183)

Decision
Case ID	202419183
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s delays in addressing the damp, mould and associated repairs. During the resident’s temporary decant electricity costs were incurred which resulting in debt collectors chasing the resident to pay this debt. The resident is assisted by a representative acting on their behalf.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. damp and mould.
   2. debt incurred during a temporary move.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   2. There was a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s handling of the debt incurred during a temporary move.
   3. There was a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acknowledged its repair failures, completed the necessary works, and offered compensation in line with its policy that appropriately reflected the impact on the resident.
6. The landlord’s offer of compensation was? fair and reasonable.
7. The landlord’s acknowledged its failures and offered compensation in line with its policy.

 

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.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The representative recently explained that there have been issues since the landlord issued its stage 2 response in June 2024, and that a separate complaint has now been raised regarding these matters. In light of this, we recommend that the landlord contact the resident directly to discuss these recent concerns. This would help ensure that any outstanding issues are understood and addressed appropriately.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 October 2022	The resident raised a complaint about: Lack of communication. Damp in the property.
2 May 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint. It confirmed that the damp works were approved, but scheduling was delayed due to the resident needing to move furniture and requesting a temporary move. The resident had also raised further concerns about damp in other areas of the property, so the landlord needed to arrange a further inspection before proceeding. The landlord offered the resident compensation for the delays. This included: £450 for time, trouble and inconvenience. £150 for delays in the complaint response.
11 August 2023	The resident’s complaint was escalated as she was unhappy with the compensation offer and the handling of her complaint. She also raised concerns about outstanding repairs to the windows and roof.
14 September 2023	The landlord issued an investigation stage response to the representative and apologised for the delays in responding to the complaint. It confirmed the following:  Windows: A new inspection was booked, and any required repairs would be monitored once the surveyor reported back. Damp & Mould: Works were delayed due to decant issues and poor coordination; the landlord acknowledged mishandling and apologised. Complaint Handling: Follow‑up emails after Stage 1 were not answered, which the landlord accepted as unacceptable and escalated internally. Roof Repairs: Further work was identified after inspection and must go through tender; a new team would oversee progress and keep the resident updated. Damaged Items: Further information and photographs were required to assess compensation for damaged belongings.
17 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and apologised for: The delays in completing damp and mould works, which were not finished until June 2023 despite an agreed target date. The stress caused to the resident when debt collection letters were wrongly sent following the decant to temporary accommodation. The delays and poor communication regarding the roof repairs, including the long period before the roof replacement was finally approved. The repeated delays, miscommunication, and inconsistent decision‑making around the window issues, including multiple inspections and declined replacement requests. The damage to the resident’s belongings caused by the prolonged damp and mould problems. The poor handling of the complaint at both stages, including missed timescales, inadequate updates, and the length of time the complaint remained open. In recognition of its failures the landlord offered £1900 for delays, inconvenience, damaged items, and poor complaint handling.   The landlord increased this offer by £150 to better reflect the damages caused. The total amount offered to the resident was £2050.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was seeking for: The landlord to resolve all outstanding issues. For windows to be replaced.

 

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	Damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the building, including the windows and roof. The resident’s tenancy agreement also confirms this responsibility.
9. The representative recently explained that there have been ongoing issues since the landlord issued its stage 2 response in June 2024. A separate complaint has been raised regarding these issues. For this report, we have only considered matters related to the initial complaint and the landlord’s formal responses.

Damp and mould

10. Following a separate previous complaint, the landlord agreed to complete outstanding damp and mould repairs by 11 November 2022. These included a damp-proof course and associated rendering works.
11. The landlord placed the works on hold at the resident’s request, as she had asked to be temporarily moved while the repairs were completed. There were also concerns about the two properties offered in November 2022, as the resident was unhappy with their location and suitability. On 11 November 2022, the landlord advised her that it would be best to postpone the planned works scheduled for 21 November 2022.
12. While we recognise that the landlord did not complete the works until July 2023, which was outside its expected timescales, the evidence shows that the delay was primarily linked to the resident’s request for a temporary move and her concerns about the suitability of the alternative accommodation offered. Although this resulted in the repairs taking longer than anticipated, the evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the concerns and providing updates.

Roof replacement

13. On 10 March 2023, the landlord identified broken and loose tiles on the roof that were causing a leak into the resident’s kitchen. It confirmed that the leak was containable. When raising the work order, the landlord advised the resident of the timescale; however, we have not seen confirmation of what the expected waiting time should have been. We would expect the landlord’s records to clearly reflect what was discussed with the resident, including any timescales provided.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify timeframes for major works. However, landlords should manage repairs proactively, ensuring they progress without unreasonable delays and that residents are kept updated.
15. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 13 September 2023, which found 60 broken tiles on the roof. The surveyor’s notes stated that there were possibly more broken tiles under the overlap that could not be seen. The surveyor also noted that a previous job to clear moss had caused damage to the roof tiles. It was recommended that a complete roof replacement be carried out.
16. The evidence shows that the landlord initially declined approval for a new roof due to additional quotes being required. Approval was then granted on 21 March 2024.
17. Overall, while it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the resident’s roof, there were significant delays in progressing the works. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took sufficient steps to proactively manage the repair or mitigate delays. In addition, its communication was inadequate, as it failed to provide clear and regular updates, resulting in avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it was waiting for an asbestos survey to be completed before carrying out any roof works. While we recognise that the resident was updated about this requirement, it contributed to further delays. The evidence confirms that a survey report was not completed, as the landlord was able to rely on findings from a previous report. The landlord subsequently completed the roofing repairs on 26 November 2024.
19. Although this contributed to some delay, it was reasonable given the nature of the repair.

Windows

20. Following the resident’s concerns about her windows in August 2023, surveyors visited on two occasions in September 2023 and March 2024. On both occasions, the surveyors commented on the age of the windows, condensation issues with the glass, and recommended that the landlord consider replacement. This was declined by the landlord, which stated that there was not enough supporting evidence to warrant replacement.
21. We have not seen evidence to confirm whether any remedial repairs were raised or carried out during this time. While the landlord previously explained that the issues were related to condensation and advised the resident to ventilate and heat the property, it is unclear whether any consideration was given to alternative remedial action.
22. On 1 May 2024, the landlord raised a further inspection of the windows. The operatives found that one window required replacement and the others required new seals. The works were scheduled to be completed in July 2024.
23. We understand that, in some circumstances, multiple visits may be required to diagnose an issue or determine the appropriate course of action. In general, landlords will seek to repair rather than replace components of a property, including windows. However, given the repeated reports from the resident and the surveyors’ observations, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate that it had actively reviewed whether further intervention was required prior to May 2024.
24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays and poor communication regarding the windows. It was appropriate that it considered the impact in its compensation offer.

Damages to personal belongings 

25. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that where damage has been caused to items, the resident may claim on their home insurance. If the damage is a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction, this will be investigated as a complaint.
26. Following the resident’s report about damage to her belongings, the landlord asked her for photographs and invoices for the items she wished to claim for.
27. There is no evidence to show that the resident provided evidence of cost; however, at its discretion and as a gesture of goodwill, the landlord offered the resident £650. It also apologised that the damage had occurred because of its delays.
28. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings were reasonable. It appropriately investigated the claim, advised her of its policy position, requested supporting evidence, and acknowledged that damage had occurred because of its delay. In offering a discretionary payment of £650 despite not having the requested evidence, the landlord demonstrated a proportionate response to the circumstances.

Summary

29. Overall, while we recognise that there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, roof, and window repairs, the landlord acknowledged these and took steps to address them. It also responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings by investigating the claim and offering a separate discretionary payment of £650. Taking into account its apologies, the remedial works completed, and the total compensation of £850 offered for the service failures (excluding the separate £650 payment for damages), we are satisfied that the landlord’s response represents a reasonable offer of redress for the identified service failures.

Complaint	Debt incurred during a temporary move
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. On 30 July 2023 the resident explained that she had received debt collection letters for energy bills relating to a previous temporary accommodation. She chased the landlord in August 2023 and explained that it was liable for these bills. She was unhappy that her details had been provided to a debt collector.
31. The landlord confirmed that it had been dealing with the matter and had requested invoices from the energy provider in March 2023. However, it had not received these. It followed this up and confirmed with the resident that it would make the payment once it was provided with the invoices.
32. We note the landlord was taking steps to resolve the matter while it is unclear when the issue was fully resolved, the evidence confirms in February 2024 that the resident confirmed the letters had stopped.
33. The resident was unhappy that the debt collection agency had her details, however we have not seen evidence to confirm that this was a result of the landlord’s actions. The landlord also investigated this matter, apologised for the stress caused and explained that it was unable to ascertain why the resident’s details were provided to the third part company or by who.
34. While the situation caused the resident distress, the evidence shows the landlord acknowledge responsibility for the debt and took steps to resolve the matter. It also took this matter into consideration when offering compensation to the resident in its stage 2 response.
35. As addressed above in the damp and mould section of this report. The landlord had offered the resident a total of £850 for its service failure. Although it did not specify how much was proportioned to each failing, we find the overall compensation in light of all the identified failures and the impact on the resident to be reasonable.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

36. Despite the resident raising a complaint on 26 October 2022, the landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 7 months later 2 May 2023. The length of time was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s expected timescales of 10 working days.
37. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £150 compensation. It also explained that its failures in service found would been reported back to the relevant teams to learn from the concerns to prevent this from happening in the future.
38. The landlord also issued an “investigation stage” response on 14 September 2023, despite its complaints policy only setting out two formal stages. Introducing an additional stage contributed to further delay before a formal stage 2 response was provided.
39. Despite the landlord’s assurances that service improvements would follow, the resident experienced significant delays in her stage 2 complaint. Her complaint was escalated on 11 August 2023, however she did not receive a response until 17 June 2024. This was outside of the landlord expected timescales of 20 working days. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered the resident £400 compensation.
40. It was unreasonable that it took 19 months for resident to reach the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The repeated delays demonstrated poor communication and complaint handling. This resulted in an unreasonable delay in bringing the complaint to a resolution and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
41. Given the unreasonable delays, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy. Overall we considered the total compensation of £550 was reasonable. This amount appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. This case shows that the landlord needs to improve its record keeping practices. The absence of clear documentation about repair timescales and the progress of major works made it difficult to evidence effective repair management. The landlord needs to learn that accurate, consistent records support transparency, help staff monitor repairs, and provide reliable evidence of actions taken.

Communication

43. The complaint demonstrates that the landlord needs to strengthen its communication with residents during the complaints process. Long periods without updates caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress. The landlord needs to learn that regular, proactive communication, especially when delays occur, helps manage expectations and creates a more transparent and responsive experience.