Sage Rented Limited (202347678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347678

Sage Rented Limited (SRL)

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat located on the ground floor of a new-build block which was handed over to the landlord in March 2023. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which began in April 2023 and the landlord’s records state that the resident has medical disabilities.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2023 to report a damp patch on the back panel of the kitchen sink unit. The landlord sent an instruction to the developer on3 May 2023 to investigate the damp patch and carry out any remedial work. The developer carried out an inspection on 13 May 2023 and reported that there were no active leaks, however, it said the kitchen unit back panel and the skirting board would need to be replaced due to previous water damage. The developer turned off the water supply for safety reasons.
Following further contact from the resident requesting a resolution, the landlord issued an instruction to its own contractor in June 2023 to investigate and carry out remedial work. The contractor attended and confirmed that the sink unit would need to be replaced. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023 as she said the matter was not being progressed and she had not been able to move into the property since the start of her tenancy. She said the stress and inconvenience were impacting on her disability. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 7 August 2023 and included the following points:
1. Due to the developer’s lack of progress in resolving the damp, it had instructed its own contractor to carry out the work.
2. The contractor had advised the landlord that it was still working on producing a quotation for the work.
3. The landlord said that the matter had not been resolved within its service level agreement and it apologised for this.
4. The landlord confirmed that it had halted the rent charges and would not charge the resident rent while she was unable to live in the property.
5. Although the developer had not found any leaks, the landlord had arranged its own independent inspection of the property.
6. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered the resident compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience.
Although the landlord had issued a job to its own contractor to carry out the repairs, the developer attended on 30 October 2023 to fit a new kitchen unit. However, having removed some of the pipes to install the new kitchen unit, the work was stopped because the developer saw there was an electrical socket near the pipes that would need to be isolated by an electrician.
During November and December 2023, the landlord apologised that the developer had attended. It agreed to reimburse the resident for her out-of-pocket expenses, such as travelling costs, as she had been staying with family. It also agreed to pay any Council Tax and utility bills while the resident was not occupying the property. During this period, the resident agreed an appointment for the landlord’s contractor to attend on 31 January 2024 to install the new kitchen sink unit.
The work did not proceed on 31 January 2024 and the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 2 February 2024. She subsequently wrote to the landlord on 7 February 2024 and said she particularly wanted the landlord to look at the events that occurred on 31 January 2024. She said the contractor had not been able to carry out the work because one of the 2 operatives who had been assigned the job had not attended due to a bereavement and the other had arrived late. The contractor had also advised her that the new kitchen unit was damaged. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 15 March 2023 and included the following points:
1. The landlord outlined the events that had led to it appointing a contractor to carry out the work.
2. It apologised that the work had not been carried out on 31 January 2024 and said it had now given the job to a different contractor.
3. The new contractor had surveyed the property in February 2024 and had not found any mould. It had then attended in March 2024 and measured for a new kitchen base unit, plinths and end panels.
4. The landlord concluded there had been delays throughout the process and it had not adequately monitored the works order.
5. The landlord confirmed it had agreed to waive the rent charges until the resident moved back to the property. It would also pay the Council Tax and energy bills.
6. Overall, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £815.18 for stress, inconvenience and delays.
7. The landlord confirmed that the new contractor had ordered new kitchen units and would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for their installation once they were delivered.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident contacted us in March 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp as it meant she had not been able to move into the property.
The landlord sent the resident an addendum to its stage 2 reply on 8 April 2024 and said it had reviewed its offer of compensation. As a result of the review, it offered a further £250 to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident due to her disabilities. The landlord’s total offer was therefore £1,065.18. The landlord also said in its email that the contractor had attended on 6 April 2024 and made progress with the works. It had agreed with the resident to complete the remaining works on 20 April and 4 May 2024.
The landlord arranged for the property to be professionally cleaned in May 2024 and the resident moved into the property on 3 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord and advised that the stress caused by the outstanding issues were having a damaging impact on her health and disability. For example, she stated this in her emails dated 24 July, 3 August and 22 November 2023. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 15 March 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen

The landlord’s welcome pack for new tenants states:
1. Properties are in a defects liability period for 12 months after they are handed over from the developer to the landlord.
2. Defects that are covered by the defects liability period are passed by the landlord to the developer so they can rectify them.
3. The landlord expects most defects to be resolved within a maximum of 28-40 working days but emphasises that these times are not guaranteed as the times will differ between developers.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy prioritises repairs according to the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will attend and make safe within 24 hours of residents reporting them.
2. Routine repairs – the landlord will complete these within 20 working days of residents reporting them.
On 2 May 2023, the resident reported a damp patch on the back panel of the kitchen sink base unit. The landlord issued an instruction to the developer on 3 May 2023 to investigate and carry out remedial work in relation to the reported damp in the sink unit. As the property was still within the 12-month defects liability period, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing an instruction to the developer to carry out any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s records show that the developer inspected the property on 13 May 2023, which was a reasonable timeframe as it was within the 28 to 40 working day timescale shown in the welcome pack. The developer said there were no active leaks but the sink unit back panel and the skirting board would need to be replaced. The developer turned off the water supply for safety reasons. As the resident did not move in at the start of the tenancy and was not occupying the property at the time, it was reasonable for the developer to turn off the water supply as a precaution in order to prevent any water damage to the property.
On 7 June 2023, the landlord issued an instruction to its own contractor to investigate the damp and provide a quote for carrying out any necessary repairs. As it had been over a month since the landlord had instructed the developer and no remedial works had been started, it was appropriate that the landlord had instructed its own contractor to carry out the work. The landlord’s original instruction to the developer had said it would do this if the developer failed to do the work within the contractual timescales. It was also reasonable that the landlord had requested the contractor to provide a quote for the works as this would provide an itemised list of the repairs and some certainty regarding the costs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 June 2023 and confirmed that the contractor would attend on 23 June 2023. The contractor attended on this day, which was 2 weeks after the landlord had raised the order. The contractor had therefore attended within an appropriate timescale, which was within the landlord’s 20-working day timescale for non-emergency repairs. The contractor concluded that the sink base unit would need to be replaced.
The resident wrote to the landlord about the outstanding repairs on 3, 11 and 17 July 2023. She then made a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023 and followed this up on 3 August with a further request for information about the repairs. We have not seen any evidence that during this period the landlord communicated with the resident regarding the remedial work. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident was unreasonable as she had advised the landlord that the situation was causing her inconvenience and stress. She had also said it was impacting on her disability.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 September 2023 and said it had approved the quote from the contractor on that day. It was unreasonable that it had taken more than 12 weeks between the contractor’s visit on 23 June 2023 and the landlord’s approval of the quote on 18 September 2023. This delayed the repairs and therefore the resident’s return to her flat.
The developer attended on 30 October 2023 to fit the new kitchen base unit. However, after removing some of the pipework to make space for the unit, the developer abandoned the work because an electrical socket was located near the water pipes. As the landlord had already given the work to another contractor, the attendance by the developer showed there had been poor communication between the landlord and the developer.
The landlord’s contractor advised the resident that it could attend on 14 November 2023 to complete the work. This was a reasonable timescale following the developer’s abortive visit on 30 October 2023. However, as the resident’s father had taken time off work for the appointment on 30 October 2023, the resident said that neither she nor her father could take further time off work until the New Year.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 31 January 2024. However, the contractor did not install the kitchen unit because the work needed to be carried out by 2 operatives and one of the operatives was unavailable due to a bereavement. The landlord later accepted that the operative who attended had not been fully briefed about the job and he had arrived late. It was unreasonable that the operative had not been briefed about the job and arrived late without notifying the resident beforehand. The operative then found that the work could not proceed because the new kitchen unit had been damaged.
Although the events of 31 January 2024 caused further frustration, distress and inconvenience for the resident, we have taken the following mitigating factors into account:
1. The landlord did not have prior warning that one of the operatives would be unavailable due to a bereavement.
2. The landlord had given clear instructions about the job to the contractor and therefore was entitled to rely on the contractor to brief the operative.
3. The landlord was unaware that the new kitchen unit was damaged as the damage could have occurred at any point while it was in transit or in storage.
Nevertheless, the communication by the contractor was poor as the resident was only told that one of the operatives was unavailable when she phoned the contractor on the day. It meant that the resident and her father were waiting for the contractor in the property without heating or running water and the operative arrived late. The lack of communication from the contractor, the late arrival by the operative and his lack of knowledge about the job added to the resident’s frustration and distress regarding the outstanding work.
On 31 January 2024, the landlord took the decision to remove the job from the contract or and assign it to a different contractor. It was reasonable that the landlord had acted promptly to appoint a different contractor given the poor service experienced by the resident on 31 January 2024.
The new contractor carried out a survey on 17 February 2024 and found there was no damp or mould present, but confirmed that the sink base unit, end panel and plinths would need to be replaced. As the work had been assigned to a different contractor it was reasonable for that contractor to carry out a new survey. The landlord also identified one of its staff as a point of contact for the resident, which was reasonable given the previous communication issues.
The landlord’s contact person advised the resident of the contractor’s findings on 22 February 2024 and the contractor attended the property on 6 March 2024 to measure so it could order the new kitchen units. The new contractor had therefore attended and measured for the new units within a reasonable timescale after its initial survey on 17 February 2024.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that there were communication issues regarding the rent charges, Council Tax, energy bills and her out-of-pocket expenses, even though the landlord had agreed to cover these costs while she was not occupying the property.
In terms of the rent charges, the resident asked the landlord on 2 June 2023 for it to pause the rent charges and refund her the rent she had already paid as she had not yet moved into the property. She chased the landlord for a response on 12 June 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s enquiry about the rent charges. She had explained in her email dated 2 June 2023 that due to her medical disability, she was finding the situation stressful and exhausting. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to ensure it communicated promptly with the resident to help reduce the distress she was experiencing.
The landlord responded on 14 June 2023 and agreed to waive the rent charges until the reported damp had been resolved. Given that the resident had not yet moved into the property due to the reported damp, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to waive the rent charges until the issue was resolved.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 October 2023 and confirmed that any arrears on her rent account would be cleared up until the completion date of the repairs. It also agreed that in the meantime it would advise its managing agent not to write to the resident about rent arrears. As the landlord had agreed to cover the rent charges from the start of the tenancy until the completion of the repairs, it was reasonable for it to ensure that the resident did not receive any rent arrears letters from the managing agent.
The evidence seen shows that the landlord took an early decision that all rent charges from the start of the tenancy to the date of completion of the repairs would be written off. It also took steps to ensure the resident would not receive rent arrears letters. In our view, these actions were fair and reasonable.
On 7 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that in her view the landlord should be responsible for covering the Council Tax charges and energy bills as she had not occupied the property. It was a shortcoming that the landlord took until 2 October 2023 to respond to the resident’s request. However, it agreed that it would pay any bills submitted by the resident until the repairs were completed. As the resident had not moved into the property, it was reasonable that the landlord had made a prompt decision to pay the Council Tax and utility bills in response to the resident’s request.
During November and December 2023, the landlord contacted the local authority on various occasions to advise them that it would be responsible for paying any Council Tax bills for the property until the repairs were completed. The landlord acted reasonably by notifying the local authority that it would pay the outstanding Council Tax bills. However, on 9 January 2024, the resident contacted the council and was advised that the Council Tax bill had not yet been paid by the landlord. The resident said this had caused her stress.
The landlord contacted the council the following day and asked for the Council Tax bills to be transferred into the landlord’s name. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 January 2025 and apologised that it had not previously asked for the bills to be transferred into its name. it said this had been due to a misunderstanding on its part. The landlord contacted the council on the following day (11 January 2025) to emphasise that the Council Tax account needed to be transferred into the landlord’s name.
The landlord had therefore responded promptly following the resident’s concerns on 9 January 2025 that the Council Tax bills were still in her name. Furthermore, the landlord apologised for its misunderstanding that meant the bills had not previously been transferred into its name. In our view, the landlord’s response to resolve the issue was fair and proportionate.
In terms of the utility bills, the resident asked the landlord to pay for the gas, electricity and water bills on 7 September 2023. The landlord agreed on 2 October 2023 to pay these bills until the repairs were resolved. This was a fair and reasonable approach while the resident was unable to occupy the property.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply dated 15 March 2024 that it had asked the utility companies to change the details on the accounts to the landlord’s name. This was reasonable as it would mean the landlord was contractually responsible to the utility companies for ensuring payments were made.
The landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident for out-of-pocket expenses, which were mainly expenses for travelling to and from the property while she was temporarily living at her parents’ home. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 November 2023 and agreed to reimburse the resident’s travelling expenses at the rate of 25p per mile. However, the resident advised the landlord on 8 December that she felt the mileage rate was too low. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had reviewed the mileage rate and would now pay 45p mile. Based on the evidence seen, the landlord responded promptly and reasonably to the resident’s enquiries about expenses.
We have found that the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in terms of it refunding or reimbursing the resident for rent, bills and expenses, apart from the delay in responding to the resident’s initial enquiry about the rent.
Overall, we have found there were a number of failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen, including:
1. There was a lack of communication with the resident following the contractor’s inspection on 23 June 2023, despite the resident advising the landlord that the situation was causing her stress and was impacting on her disability.
2. There was a delay of more than 12 weeks between the contractor’s inspection on 23 June 2023 and the landlord’s approval of the quote on 18 September 2023.
3. There was poor communication between the landlord and the developer, which resulted in an abortive visit by the developer on 30 October 2023 and the resident’s father taking unnecessary time off work.
4. There was a lack of communication from the contractor on the day of the appointment on 31 January 2024. This resulted in the resident and her father waiting in the property without heating and running water. The operative arrived late and had not been briefed adequately about the job.
5. Overall, there was a lack of urgency and adequate monitoring of the repairs to the kitchen unit following the report of damp. This resulted in the resident being unable to occupy the property for over a year, which caused her considerable distress and inconvenience due to her disabilities and having to stay with her parents.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the reports of damp in the kitchen. For example, in its stage 2 reply it said there had been poor communication with the developer, there was poor customer service from the first contractor it appointed, there were unreasonable delays throughout and a lack of effective monitoring. It sought to put things right by:
1. Assigning the work to its own contractor due to non-performance by the developer.
2. Appointing a new contractor to carry out the works due to poor customer service by the previous contractor in January 2024.
3. Apologising for the service received by the resident.
4. Waiving the rent charges for the entire period the resident did not occupy the property.
5. Paying the Council Tax and utility bills for the entire period.
6. Reimbursing the resident for her out-of-pocket expenses.
7. Assigning one of its staff to be a point of contact for the resident to improve communications.
8. Offering compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord also demonstrated learning, as stated in its stage 2 reply, by:
1. Escalating the case in November 2023 to its senior management team so the outstanding issues could be closely monitored during weekly meetings.
2. Removing the first contractor from its approved list of contractors after the appointment on 31 January 2024 due to their poor customer service.
3. Increasing staffing levels in its Aftercare team.
4. Carrying out further staff training regarding the importance of clear and timely communication with residents.
5. Improving monitoring of outstanding job tickets.
In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £250 at stage 1 of the complaints process and an additional £565.18 at stage 2. It therefore offered a total of £815.18 during the complaints process for the delays, distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s Remedies Policy states that it will offer discretionary compensation of up to £500 for ‘high impact’ failures where “a serious failure in service has taken place. This could either be due to the severity of the event, or a persistent failure has occurred over a prolonged period of time”. In this case, we agree that there was a high level of impact on the resident due to the period she was unable to occupy the property (during which time she stayed with her parents) and due to her disabilities.
The level of compensation offered by the landlord is also within the range of sums recommended in our own Remedies Guidance for situations where there was significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident. Therefore, considering the other measures taken by the landlord to put things right and all the circumstances of the case, we have found that the landlord made a fair and proportionate offer of redress to put things right. Consequently, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.
We are aware that the landlord made an additional offer of £250 on 8 April 2024, bringing the total offer to £1,065. We have not assessed this additional offer as it was made after the stage 2 reply on 15 March 2024. However, as the landlord offered this sum, we would expect it to be paid. We have therefore included this sum in the amount we have recommended the landlord pays to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord may extend these timescales for responding if the complaint is complex or additional areas of investigation are required. If an extension is required, the landlord will contact the resident to confirm the estimated resolution time. The extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without legitimate reasons.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 24 July 2023, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged on the same day. The landlord sent it stage 1 reply on 7 August 2023, which was 10 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore replied appropriately within the timescale stipulated in its Complaints Policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 September 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. However, following further correspondence with the landlord, she wrote to the landlord on 27 November 2023 and said she wanted to wait for the outstanding works to be completed before deciding on the next steps regarding her complaint. The landlord did not progress the complaint at that stage, which was reasonable given that the resident had said she wanted to wait before deciding whether to progress the complaint.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 2 February 2024 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, which was appropriate. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 February 2024 and said that as the investigating officer was unwell, it would need to extend the timescale for responding to 8 March 2024. As the landlord could not respond within the 20-working day timescale because the investigating officer was ill, it was appropriate for it to write to the resident advising her it would need an extension of time. It appropriately gave a revised timescale for the response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2024 to say that it was still awaiting information and needed a further extension until 15 March 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 15 March 2024, which was 30 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint on 2 February 2024. Although the landlord had extended the response timescale twice, the extensions had not exceeded the 20-working day extension period allowed in its Complaints Policy for stage 2 complaints. The landlord had therefore responded within a reasonable timescale.
Overall, we have found that the landlord’s handling of the complaints was appropriate and reasonable. As a result, we have made a finding of no maladministration in relation to its complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £815.18 offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should also reoffer the £250 offered in its stage 2 addendum dated 8 April 2024 if this has not already been paid.