Sanctuary Housing Association (202410261)

Background

1. The resident complained about damp and mould in his flat. The landlord agreed a programme of work to address the matter and provided the resident with £2730 in compensation. However, the works took a further 7 months to complete.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the property, and associated repairs.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property, and associated repairs

4. The landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the situation, including to his health, and it did not manage the resident’s expectations about how long the works on the property would take to complete.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord did not follow its own complaints policy in terms of timeliness or explaining the reasons for its delay. However, it apologised for this and provided compensation 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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. In his complaint to the landlord on 1 April 2024, the resident explained that he had reported the recurrence of mould in his bedroom and lounge in January 2024. The issue had previously been treated in September 2023. He mentioned the surveys that had been done, and confusion around the involvement of a second contractor when he believed the work had already been agreed. The resident was frustrated by the delay. He also told the landlord that he had emphysema, that his partner was immunocompromised and suffered from severe anxiety and depression, and the stress of the situation was affecting both of them.
7. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1, confirmed that a surveyor had attended on 19 January 2024 and noted that mould had returned, and apologised to the resident for the breakdown in service. It offered compensation of £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and said the proposed work of damp proof course injections and water sealing had been sent for approval.
8. The resident escalated the complaint, disputing some of the information contained in the landlord’s reply. He chased the landlord on 27 May 2024, including photographs of mould in the property. He also set out in detail what he referred to as “complex health needs”.
9. The landlord upheld the stage 2 complaint. In its response, it provided a detailed list of work to be completed, and said final approval had been given for it to proceed. It said the work would be completed in stages “over a period of time” and that the works coordination team would provide updates to the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience, and offered £2730 in compensation. This included loss of enjoyment, which the landlord said took into account an additional period of 3 months to allow the outstanding works to be completed,
10. At the time of responding to the stage 2 complaint, the landlord was aware that mould had been present in the resident’s property for 6 months. It was also aware of the resident’s medical conditions. Although it did not provide a timeframe for the programme of work, the 3 additional months of compensation for loss of enjoyment indicated that it expected the work to be completed in that period.
11. In the circumstances, the remedies offered at the point of the stage 2 complaint response were appropriate and proportionate to the failings the landlord had recognised in its handling. The compensation was of a significant level, well in line with our remedies guidance, and showed the landlord appreciated the seriousness of the problem and the effect on the resident. However, the work to resolve the problems after the stage 2 went on for longer than the landlord had anticipated, not being completed until February 2025.
12. Following the stage 2 response, the resident chased the landlord a number of times about completing the agreed work. While the landlord did respond, there is no evidence of it managing his expectations about how much longer the work would potentially take. That was an important omission once the 3-month period the landlord had originally anticipated the work would likely take had passed.
13. The resident continued to remind the landlord about his health needs and said the situation was affecting his breathing. One expectation of landlords in taking a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to damp and mould (which the landlord’s policies say it adopts) is that they will check if a home is safe to live in, and consider options such as temporarily moving a tenant if necessary. In this case the mould was significant, yet there is no evidence of such checking with the resident, despite his clearly expressed concerns about the effect on his and his family’s health. The landlord eventually moved him temporarily in January 2025, but that was primarily due to the scale of the works, and was many months into its repair efforts.
14. The work needed to rectify the situation was clearly complex. Although the resident’s flat was on the ground floor, it was in a block of 4 flats and some of the work was contingent on repairs to the roof of the block. When we spoke to the resident in October 2024, some internal work had been done but work on the roof was outstanding. This work, along with other external and internal work, was completed in January and February 2025. The time taken to complete the works was lengthy but, based on evidence provided, that appears to be more a result of their scale and nature than any clear failings by the landlord.
15. Overall, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp were initially poor, which it then addressed and reasonably remedied in its complaint responses. The following work took longer than the landlord expected, which is not in itself a failing. However, the landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the impact on him in the period following the final complaint response, and did not manage his expectations about how long the work would take once the initial 3-month period had passed. We have made a compensation order to redress these failings, and have commented below about the landlord’s communications.

16. The landlord’s policy at the time said it should acknowledge complaints at each stage within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy also allowed the landlord to extend the timeframe for response at stage 2 by 20 working days for complex matters. These timescales are in line with our Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident complained on 1 April 2024 and the landlord responded on 23 April 2024, after 16 working days. This was outside the timescales stated in its policy and the Code. The landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledged delays and miscommunication, and offered £150 as a “gesture of goodwill” for time, trouble and inconvenience.
18. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 April 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 May 2024, saying it was not in a position to respond to the complaint and would contact him by 21 June 2024 (an extension of 20 working days). It apologised for the delay but did not give a reason.
19. After the resident chased the landlord for a reply several times, it responded on 4 July 2024, 49 working days after the complaint escalation. It acknowledged its delay in responding, upheld the resident’s complaint, and set out a detailed programme of works to address the substantive issue. In addition to compensation for other matters, the landlord offered £150 specifically for complaint handling.
20. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that, if it needed to extend the time taken to respond at stage 2, it would explain the reasons for doing so. The Code also states that the reasons for any delay must be clearly explained. The landlord did not explain why it was unable to respond in accordance with its policy, and in the end it took longer than the additional 20 working days to do so.
21. Nonetheless, the landlord’s acknowledgement of its delays, apology and compensation in its stage 2 response was an appropriate remedy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records were of an appropriate standard, which enabled us to robustly consider its actions and decisions regarding the damp and mould issue, and the associated complaint.

Communication

23. The landlord should reflect on the standard and timeliness of its communication with residents, particularly by managing expectations when work is taking longer than expected. This will help to avoid both frustration on the part of residents and complaints about the landlord’s service.