Sanctuary Housing Association (202342242)

Decision
Case ID	202342242
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 February 2026

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s. Her tenancy began in November 2023. Soon afterwards, she began to report various repair issues to the landlord. She did not move to the property immediately. The property is a flat in a low-rise block. The block is a listed building in a conservation area.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about leaks in the property’s bathroom.
2. Reports and concerns about leaks into the property, damp, and mould.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s windows.
4. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about leaks in the bathroom.
2. Response to her reports and concerns about leaks into the property, damp, and mould.
3. Complaint handling.
We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the property’s windows.

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

Summary of reasons

Leaks in the bathroom

The landlord overlooked flooring related communication failures during its complaints process. As a result, it did not attempt to address the related adverse impact to the resident.

Leaks into the property, damp, and mould

The landlord was responsible for various delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not acknowledge the full extent of these or make a reasonable attempt to put things right.

Condition of the property’s windows

The landlord exceeded its expected timescale to replace the windows. There is no indication that it revised its compensation calculation to reflect the short delay.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not recognise the full extent of its delays and failures. As a result, it did not address the corresponding adverse impact to the resident.

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 provided by a relevant senior manager (area level or above). 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 25 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,279.80 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports/concerns about leaks in the bathroom. £600 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports/concerns about leaks into the property, damp, and mould. £86.80 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the condition of the windows. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. £1,293 which it awarded the resident during its complaints process. 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 already paid.	No later than 25 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must promptly inspect the property for damp and mould. It must then produce a written report with its findings. This should include photographs. If it identifies repairs, the landlord must provide a scope of works and action plan to complete these. It must share its inspection report and action plan with the resident and us.	No later than 25 March 2026
4	Reconsider previous complaint response order The landlord must revisit its complaint response from September 2025. There is evidence that it excluded at least some of the resident’s complaint points in error. It must ensure that her concerns are addressed correctly. It must also evidence its actions to us.	No later than 25 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 7 December 2023 and 25 January 2024	The resident raised various concerns with the landlord about the property. For example, she said it had concealed repair issues and the walls were dripping with water. On at least 2 occasions, she said that the situation was unfair. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: There was damp and mould in the property. Water was entering the property through the block’s roof. The property was cold due to defective windows. Its overall condition was making her ill. She was sleeping in the living room. She had called the landlord numerous times. Its surveyor had missed a scheduled appointment. She could not use the shower due to unsafe flooring under the bath.
9 February 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It addressed an email which the resident had sent on 22 January 2024. It said it had followed up some outstanding works with its relevant team. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. In total, it awarded her £25 in compensation. Its calculation was based on poor communication and a missed appointment.
Between 9 February and 2 April 2024	The resident escalated her complaint soon afterwards. She said that the landlord had overlooked parts of her complaint and the relevant timeline. The resident expanded on her complaint over subsequent emails. In summary, some of her other key points during this period were: The landlord had shown an unhelpful/dismissive approach. It had only progressed some of the repair issues. She had spent money on decorations that were damaged. The landlord had given her conflicting information about these. It should arrange a temporary move to facilitate repairs.
8 April 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It acknowledged that it was responsible for some delays and failures. It upheld the complaint and awarded the resident a total of £1,268 in compensation. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: It was important to keep the property warm and well ventilated. It could not have known about mould under the previous tenant’s wallpaper. It had completed some damp and mould works. It would arrange a further inspection of the property. It would repair or replace some flashing on the block’s roof. It would replace the property’s windows. This could take some time due to the block’s listed status. It was planning major works to render the block’s external walls. Its repair to the bathroom flooring was delayed. There were problems with its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 8 April 2024, the resident told us that she felt the block had wider repair issues. She said the landlord should address these. In February 2026, she told us there was ongoing damp in the bedroom and the property was cold. In summary, she said the landlord had not completed sufficient works or done enough to put things right.

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	Reports and concerns about leaks in the bathroom
Finding	Maladministration

On 27 November 2023, the resident reported that a neighbour had contacted her about a leak from the property. She also said she was not living there yet. The landlord visited the property on the same date. Records show it removed the bath panel (presumably to complete a repair). The landlord’s website says it should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It responded to the resident’s initial report within an appropriate timescale.
On 5 December 2023 the resident reported that the property’s bath and toilet were both leaking. She said the bathroom floor was saturated. Records show the landlord raised an urgent repair at this point. They also show that it attended the property again on 12 December 2023. This was 5 working days later. The evidence points to a delay.
During the interim period, the resident contacted the landlord around 4 times about the outstanding repair. Records suggest it could have avoided this. Ultimately, the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord set her expectations and then failed to meet these. It is likely that its approach was distressing and/or inconvenient for her.
On 22 January 2024, the resident told the landlord she had stopped using the property’s shower. This was on the basis that flooring under the bath had rotted due to the leaks. The resident said there was a hole in the floor that crumbled when touched. Her safety concerns were understandable. Her email suggests she had moved to the property.
The landlord inspected the bathroom on the next day. In related internal correspondence, it said that the chipboard flooring had disintegrated. It recommended replacing this along with the bath, floor covering, and bath panel. It did not say whether it was safe for the resident to use the shower. The landlord could have reasonably recorded its view on this.
Around this time, the resident asked the landlord to arrange a temporary move due to a lack of bathing facilities. On 25 January 2024 the landlord told her that its relevant team had declined her request. It was reasonable to consider the resident’s preferred solution. We found a copy of the landlord’s (undated) temporary moves guidance in our records.
The guidance says if a loss of facilities occurs which “cannot be suitably resolved by temporary measures”, then the landlord can move the affected resident temporarily. Given the above, it is not clear that the landlord was obliged to move the resident in this case. Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to show that its decision was unreasonable.
The resident says that the landlord gave her conflicting information about a temporary move. We have not seen any evidence to confirm this. However, there is evidence the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord missed opportunities to explain its decision about the temporary move, and/or reassure her about the extent of the damage.
For example, on 26 January 2024 a contractor told the landlord that it felt the bath could be used safely (until it was repaired). It is unclear if the landlord relayed this information to the resident. We note that on 7 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that she had used the sink to wash for about 10 days. This may have been avoidable.
Records show that the landlord repaired the bathroom floor on 4 March 2024. This was about 41 days after the resident’s corresponding report. The landlord’s website says it will complete routine repairs within 45 working days. From the information seen, the landlord adhered to its relevant timescale in relation to the damaged flooring.
Records indicate that, during the above referenced works, the landlord discovered that the bath was still leaking. It raised a corresponding repair order on 4 March 2024. It completed a repair on 7 March 2024 (3 days later). This was a reasonable timeframe. However, it may have been inconvenient for the resident to facilitate further works. The ongoing leak may have undermined her confidence in the landlord’s repair service. There is evidence that she complained about one of its contractors during the relevant timeline.
During its complaints process, the landlord said it should have repaired the leak within 45 days of the resident’s initial report (by 11 January 2024). This was a reasonable approach. The landlord awarded the resident £300 in compensation for related distress and inconvenience. Its award was consistent with the ‘high effort/ impact’ category in its compensation guidance. This was a reasonable category for the landlord to apply.
However, the landlord did not identify any failures in relation to the bathroom flooring. Given the information set out above, we find that its approach was unreasonable. Ultimately, there is evidence the landlord was responsible for communication failures which had a significant adverse impact on the resident. We note that she contacted the landlord multiple times about a temporary move and a lack of usable bathing facilities.
In summary, the landlord overlooked flooring related communication failures during its complaints process. As a result, it did not attempt to address the related adverse impact to the resident. The evidence suggests this was significant and avoidable. We have ordered the landlord to pay a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.
Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Reports and concerns about leaks into the property, damp, and mould
Finding	Maladministration

On 7 December 2023 the resident raised concerns about humidity and condensation in the property’s bedroom and bathroom. For example, she told the landlord that her decorator had been unable to paint the bathroom walls. This was on the basis that these were too wet. Some of her concerns were understandable in the circumstances.
The landlord replied on the same day. It said that the resident was not using the heating. It also said she should heat, wipe, and ventilate the property. It supplied a leaflet about managing damp and mould. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at this time. It is unclear whether it had observed the reported repair issues at this point.
On 11 December 2023 the resident made a further report which referenced damp and mould. She said that she was not staying at the property due to its condition. The landlord raised an inspection order on the same day. This was a reasonable approach.
In January 2024, 2 inspections failed to take place as scheduled. On each occasion the resident called the landlord about these on the same day. Ultimately, its level or lack of communication hindered its progress. Records show the resident chased the landlord about inspections numerous times during this month. It is likely this was inconvenient.
From 22 January 2024 onwards, the resident began to raise concerns about a chimney and the block’s roof. She felt some damp and mould issues were linked to these features. On 5 February 2024 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property. This was about 9 weeks after the resident first raised concerns. Since damp and mould are potential health hazards, we find that this timeframe was unreasonable.
In summary, the surveyor agreed with some of the resident’s points. For example, they said a roofing contractor should check the block’s tiles and gutter. Similarly, that airbricks should be installed in a chimney to improve ventilation. They recommended internal repairs to the bedroom and bathroom. They said the bedroom works should not begin until the roof had been assessed and/or repaired. The surveyor’s other key points were:
1. There was water ingress into the top corner of a bedroom.
2. There were yellow marks on a chimney breast.
3. A previous mould clean in the bathroom had not been completed properly.
4. As a result of the ineffective clean, the decorations did not cover the old marks.
On 7 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that the property’s condition was having an adverse impact on her health and wellbeing. For example, she said she was having sinus problems. She also said she had lost money due to damaged decorations. We note that she made similar comments several times during the period in question.
The records and correspondence we have seen show the following events occurred later:
1. On 21 February 2024 the landlord cancelled a related repair order in error. This led to further contact from the resident. It is likely this was avoidable.
2. Around the same time, the resident reported that the landlord had not fulfilled a commitment to supply a dehumidifier. We have not seen evidence to the contrary.
3. On 7 March 2024 the landlord carried out mould treatment works in the bathroom. It then arranged another appointment. Records suggest it ran out of time to complete the repairs. The resident said she had taken time off work to facilitate these.
4. On 19 March 2024 the landlord applied mould resistant paint to the bedroom and bathroom.
5. On 26 March 2024, it applied stain block to the bathroom. This was 50 days after its inspection.
During its complaints process, the landlord did acknowledge some initial communication problems and a failed inspection. It did not identify further failures in its final response. It also seemed blame the resident for some damp issues. For example, it said she did not commission the property’s gas supply until 5 January 2024. There is evidence that the resident used the heating sparingly at times. This includes a comment that she made.
However, the landlord did not emphasise a lack of heating in its inspection findings. It did find evidence that supported some of the resident’s concerns. It also found evidence of a defective historical repair which may have impacted her decorations. Overall, we find the landlord’s tone was unreasonable. It may have added to the resident’s distress.
There were other problems with the landlord’s approach. For example, it did not address the resident’s concerns about health impacts and damage to belongings. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective September 2022) says it should assess claims and refer to its insurer if necessary. The landlord has not shown that it adhered to its policy. From the information seen, the resident’s concerns remain outstanding to date.
Similarly, the landlord overlooked other key issues. These included the resident’s comments about a dehumidifier, additional repair visits, and an appointment cancelled in error. Ultimately, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its failures or make a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident. Its approach was inadequate.
We have seen limited information about the landlord’s actions following its final response in April 2024. The evidence does show that it responded to further complaints about damp and mould during 2025. At some point, the resident also raised a similar legal disrepair claim. The parties have confirmed that this claim never progressed to court.
In February 2026, the resident told us that unresolved issues with the block’s roof and chimney were causing ongoing damp in her bedroom. She also said the landlord did not install airbricks in line with the surveyor’s recommendation. She said many of the repairs it completed (after she complained) were delayed. We were mindful of her comments.
The landlord updated us around the same time. It supplied a final response from September 2025. This said it could not investigate the resident’s concerns about damp mould issues/delayed repairs due to an ongoing legal claim. Our Complaint handling Code ‘the Code’ sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints.
The Code defines legal proceedings. Ultimately, it confirms that proceedings have not started until the claim has been filed with a court. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aligns with the Code. Unlike the Code, it does not explain what legal proceedings involve. Since there is no court action in this case, the evidence points to a misunderstanding on the landlord’s part.
Ultimately, there is evidence of more recent delays and failures by the landlord. We have made orders for it to address these.
In summary, the landlord was responsible for various delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not recognise the full extent of these or make a reasonable attempt to put things right. Its unreasonable tone may have added to the resident’s distress. We have ordered it to pay her a proportionate amount of compensation.

Complaint	Concerns about the condition of the windows
Finding	Service failure

From January 2024 onwards, the resident raised concerns about the property’s windows. For example, on 23 January 2024 she said these were over 20 years old. She also said the single glazing did not provide sufficient insulation. In summary, she felt the property was too cold and this was partly due to the condition of the windows.
The evidence indicates that the landlord inspected the windows when it visited the property in February 2024. The inspection records we have seen do not include the landlord’s related findings. The evidence points to record keeping problems.
In its final response, the landlord confirmed it would replace the windows. It said the works would take time because planning permission was required. It also said the block’s listed status meant it could not upgrade the windows. We have not seen any evidence to the contrary. We note the tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to maintain the structure and exterior of the property and keep this “in proper working order”.
Ultimately, the landlord accepted that the windows were in a poor condition. It awarded the resident £868 in related compensation. Its loss of enjoyment calculation assumed that the windows would be replaced by 30 September 2024. This was about 10 months after the resident’s tenancy began. The landlord’s calculation was equivalent to £86.80 per month. We find that this was a reasonable and proportionate figure.
The parties’ correspondence shows the windows were replaced in October 2024. The landlord set the resident’s expectations and then failed to meet these. There is no indication that it revised its calculation to reflect the short delay (around 1 month). We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

In this case, the most relevant version of the Code is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord has supplied a complaints policy (effective September 2022), which refers to the Code.
On 7 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord about the property’s condition. In summary, she said it had misled her and treated her unfairly. The Code defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made,” about a landlord’s standard of service or actions. The resident’s email clearly met this criteria.
The landlord replied on the same day. It did not log a formal complaint at this point. It should have at least offered to do this. Ultimately, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code. Its unreasonable approach may have added to the resident’s distress.
Based on the period between 7 December 2023 and 9 February 2024, it took the landlord about 43 working days to issue a stage 1 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days. The landlord did not do this. The evidence points to an unreasonable delay of around 5 weeks.
The resident questioned the quality of the landlord’s stage 1 response on the day it was issued. Between 9 February and 20 March 2024, she expressed clear dissatisfaction at least 5 times. She ultimately approached us for help. The landlord did not escalate her complaint until we intervened. Again, its unreasonable approach caused avoidable distress and/or inconvenience for the resident.
Ultimately, it took the landlord about 40 working days to issue a stage 2 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. The landlord departed from its policy and the Code. The evidence points to a further delay of about 1 month.
In its final response, the landlord recognised there were quality issues with its previous investigation. It also identified a short delay at stage 1 (it believed the resident had complained on 22 January 2024). It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address these issues. Given what happened, it was reasonable to award compensation.
However, the landlord did not recognise the full extent of its delays and failures at stage 1. Similarly, it did not acknowledge any delays or failures at stage 2. As a result, it did not address the corresponding adverse impact to the resident. This was unreasonable. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord overlooked a number of damage/liability claims and complaints/escalation requests. It also seems to have excluded a complaint in error. It could provide related feedback to its staff. It could consider defining legal proceedings in its complaints policy.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were some issues with the landlord’s inspection records. It could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

There were problems with the landlord’s tone. Unless it has strong supporting evidence, it should avoid blaming residents for repair issues. The landlord could provide related feedback to its staff.