Sanctuary Housing Association (202421488)

Background

1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s position on her reports of damp and mould in her property and the time taken to address the issues. She said she still had damp and mould, which was impacting her health. The resident has disclosed vulnerabilities to both us and the landlord, including that she has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The time taken to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould was not appropriate and caused her distress and inconvenience. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response recognised its failings and its offer of redress was fair and reasonable, given the circumstances.

Complaint handling

5. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which were not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of proportionate redress.

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 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. The resident reported that the handling of the damp and mould affected her health. We cannot determine causation or liability for any health impacts. This may be more appropriately dealt with via a personal injury claim for the courts to decide. Our investigation has therefore focused on the likely distress and inconvenience from any service failings.
7. The resident said she had reported the issues for years. We do not dispute her account, but there is no evidence of formal complaints to the landlord or to us before March 2023. To ensure a fair and proportionate investigation, we focused on the 12 months before the formal complaint and up to the stage 2 response.
8. The landlord’s repair policy required it to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non‑emergency repairs within 28 days. It also committed to providing a flexible service for vulnerable residents, taking account of their needs and the severity of the situation.
9. On 7 March 2022, the resident reported mould on her furniture. The landlord inspected the property on 29 March 2022, in line with its non‑emergency timescale. The inspection found no damp but identified mould and condensation in the corner of her bedroom caused by toys blocking airflow into the room. The landlord raised a mould wash and installation of a “weep hole”, which it completed on 13 June 2022. The time taken to complete the repairs was not in line with its repair timescales, which is a failing.
10. We have not seen any further reports made from the resident that year, other than a repair to clear the gutters in November 2022. The landlord completed this in 2 working days, which was appropriate.
11. While not evident in the landlord’s records, the resident provided a copy of an email she sent to the landlord on 25 January 2023. She said she had mould on her furniture for the last year and the landlord had done nothing to prevent it. The resident said she suffered with COPD and her health was worsening. She felt the problem was coming up from her floors. It is not appropriate that we cannot see evidence of the landlord recording this contact or responding to the resident’s serious concerns at the time.
12. On 23 February 2023, a gas engineer reported mould throughout the resident’s property and referred to her COPD. They requested attendance for as soon as possible. The landlord attempted to call the resident and then raised a routine inspection, which took place 7 working days later. This may have been a reasonable timeframe. However, given the severity of the reported mould and the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have shown how it assessed the risks and the urgency of its response.
13. The inspection report was provided on 4 April 2023. It attributed the mould on the furniture to poor heating and ventilation. It said the damp readings showed the walls and carpets were dry, ruling out rising damp. It recommended air bricks, which the resident declined and cleaning the condensation-related mould on the window frame. It also recommended filling gaps between the slabs and external wall with a resin compound.
14. The landlord completed the resin compound on 28 April 2023, which was reasonable and in line with its non-emergency timescales. It noted that when it tried to book in the mould wash, the resident advised that she had done it herself. We appreciate the resident’s frustration and that she disputed the findings. However, we must rely on the evidence provided to us, and the landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified contractors. By refusing the air bricks and mould wash at that time, this limited the landlord in the steps it could take to fully resolve the issue.
15. There are no further reports recorded from the resident until September 2023, when the resident said repairs were still outstanding. She referred to attic vents, a kitchen extractor fan, and a larger radiator, which she said the surveyor had discussed with her at the time. She also asked for the previous inspection report because she felt those repairs had not been included. We have not seen evidence that the landlord identified these repairs earlier, but it was still not appropriate that it failed to respond and clarify its position. This lack of communication would not have managed her expectations.
16. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 February 2024 and said there was still mould on the base of her furniture which was worse than ever. She said her health had declined as a result. The landlord raised an inspection which took place on 13 March 2024, in line with its non-emergency timescales. Again, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord should have shown how it assessed the risks and whether it needed to attend sooner.
17. The inspection found that mould treatment was required to an affected area in the kitchen and high moisture readings were recorded in the architrave in the hallway, with the cause unknown. It said no other areas of damp and mould were recorded at the time of the visit. A drainage survey and loft inspection also took place which identified repairs to the roof, rear gutter joint, and fractured brickwork.
18. The landlord requested a mould wash on 18 June 2024, it is unclear why it took so long to raise this after the inspection. The landlord later cancelled it, stating that no damp or mould was found. This contradicts the March 2024 inspection findings and the residents subsequent reports of mould in May 2024. We have seen no evidence a mould wash was carried out. In the absence of any further information related to the landlord’s decision making at the time, this was a failing.
19. Internal emails from June to August 2024 show the landlord struggled to obtain approval for roofing works. Confusion over the quote and approval process caused unnecessary delays. The landlord confirmed completion of the works on 18 September 2024.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its failures and confirmed it had completed all outstanding repairs. It acknowledged the resident had been cleaning the mould herself and ensuring there was adequate ventilation in the property. It said it had taken a number of steps to investigate the issues. The landlord said addressing damp can be an elimination exercise requiring a series of repairs and visits. It also recognised it had not investigated her concerns about flooding and water beneath the property and committed to arranging a structural survey. Although we have not seen evidence of the resident raising this earlier, it was reasonable for the landlord to address it.
21. The independent structural survey on 17 December 2024 found no evidence of water rising through the substructure. It reported the property was almost free from damp and not experiencing significant mould, though it recommended repairs and improvements.
22. The stage 2 response also acknowledged the resident had reported mould for years without an explanation for the damage to her belongings. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have then stated its position on liability following its investigations into the reports. We do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. Therefore, we have recommended the landlord provide details of its liability insurer should the resident wish to make a claim.
23. The landlord had a duty to respond to the reports of damp and mould. It failed to do so promptly on several occasions, causing the resident distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. This was likely aggravated by her vulnerabilities. It was therefore reasonable to offer financial remedy, its compensation offer comprised of:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience.
    2. £1,794 for loss of enjoyment of the home.
    3. £250 for the dehumidifier.
24. The landlord’s compensation offer exceeded the guidelines set out in its policy of high effort and impact cases. This demonstrated it recognised the seriousness of its failings, and the steps required to put things right for the resident.
25. When assessing whether there has been maladministration, we look at both the events that led to the complaint and the landlord’s response. It is important to consider whether the landlord recognised its shortcomings and took appropriate steps to put things right. We will not find maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged its failings and taken reasonable action to resolve them.
26. We have considered the full circumstances of the case, the landlord’s response, and the commitments made in its stage 2 response. In consultation with our own compensation guidance, we conclude that the redress offered was reasonable.
27. We understand further actions and reports have taken place since the stage 2 response. We are not able to investigate all the landlord’s actions taken after the stage 2 response and the resident has submitted a further formal complaint about the ongoing issue. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to that complaint, she may wish to bring that to us for investigation.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 days of the acknowledgement, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 3 working days and issued an interim response within 9 working days. However, it did not issue the full stage 1 response until 19 working days later which exceeded its policy timescales.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation until 5 months later, which was not in keeping with its complaints policy or the Code. It then did not provide a stage 2 response until 8 months after its acknowledgement. This was over a year after the resident’s stage 2 escalation. This breached its policy and our Code, likely causing the resident distress, and delaying her ability to bring the complaint to us.
31. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and acknowledge the impact of the significant delays. It would have been reasonable for it to have also reflected on the causes of the delays and identified learning to prevent recurrence. Our compensation guidance recommends up to £250 for significant complaint handling failures which would result in circumstances of maladministration or severe maladministration. The landlord offered £250, which was therefore appropriate, and showed it recognised the need for substantial redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. At times, the landlord’s records did not show what action the landlord had taken and when, or how it made its decisions. Effective record keeping is a core part of a repairs service. Accurate, complete records allow landlords to track repair progress, give timely updates, monitor outstanding work, and maintain an audit trail that explains delays or decisions.

Communication

33. There was a clear gap at times between the landlord’s records of visits and repairs and the resident’s understanding of what had happened. This indicates that the landlord’s communication and updates were unclear and did not manage her expectations. Regular communication and clear explanations about her reports would likely have reduced the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction.