Sanctuary Housing Association (202443527)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443527

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, and associated damp and mould.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in 2019. The landlord’s records note that one of the resident’s children has breathing issues.
  2. The resident raised a complaint (Complaint A) on 30 January 2023. This was about a suspected leak in her loft and mould in her bathroom, and child’s bedroom. She said she had first reported this in November 2022. She added that, since then, the landlord had not been to inspect the leak and the mould was “getting worse”.
  3. The landlord responded to Complaint A on 28 March 2023. It said an operative had attended the property on 23 February 2023 to inspect the damp but could not gain access. It stated that it had booked another appointment for 17 April 2023.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint (Complaint B) on 26 March 2024. She said that she had been reporting damp and mould in her bathroom for over a year. However, despite visits by operatives, the landlord had done nothing to resolve the problem and the mould had spread to the bedrooms.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to Complaint B on 11 September 2024. It stated that it had raised works to fit a ventilation unit in her property and said it would ensure this was completed “as quickly as possible”. It offered her £175 compensation for the delays in its repair and complaints handling.
  6. The resident raised a third complaint (Complaint C) on 16 December 2024 about the leak and mould in her bathroom. She said that, despite raising several complaints, the landlord had still not fixed the leak. She added that water came into her loft every time it rained, which then ran down to her bathroom ceiling.
  7. The landlord acknowledged Complaint C on 18 December 2024 and sent a stage 1 response on 6 January 2025. It said it had approved roof repairs in September 2024 but these were “weather dependent and prone to delays”. It added it was unlikely the contractor would attend until the weather improved. It assured her it would “track and monitor” the outstanding repairs and offered her £200 compensation for the delays.
  8. The resident sent a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2025. She said she had rung it “literally every day” for an update on the roof repair but nobody had got back to her.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 17 March 2025 and sent the resident a final response on 11 April 2025. It upheld the complaint and stated that it:
    1. had inspected her bathroom and bedroom several times for damp and mould. However, it had not inspected her roof until July 2024.
    2. had approved the roofing works in September 2024. However, the works did not go ahead before the contractor’s quote expired.
    3. had approved a revised quote and would contact her to arrange a mutually convenient time for the repairs to start.
    4. offered its “sincere apologies” and increased the compensation to £500 in recognition of delays in carrying out repairs, poor communication and failings in its complaint handling.
  10. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that scaffolding had been up since April 2025, but the roof repairs were still outstanding. She added that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted us to investigate her complaint.
  11. The landlord has recorded that it completed roofing repairs on 12 May 2025.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak, and associated damp and mould

  1. The evidence shows an operative attended the property following the resident’s report of mould in November 2022. However, the landlord has not provided the exact date of the visit or an inspection report. It is therefore unclear what steps it took to diagnose the issue. The resident reported mould on several further occasions between November 2022 and December 2024. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure states it will arrange for a mould wash to be completed where the landlord diagnoses mould following a resident’s initial report. There is no indication it had carried out any mould washes in line with its procedure.
  2. The records show that, following Complaint A, the landlord had arranged to inspect the property on 23 February 2023 for damp and mould. It’s notes suggest that it was unable to gain access at this time. The landlord advised the resident in its response to Complaint A, nonetheless, that it had rescheduled the appointment for 17 April 2023. There is no evidence to show the inspection went ahead.
  3. The records suggest that a surveyor attended on 26 February 2024. The landlord was unable to provide us with a copy of an inspection report. We therefore cannot determine the extent of the damp during the inspection or any recommendations the landlord may have made.
  4. The landlord did not provide us with copies of its inspection reports. Furthermore, although the landlord told the resident it had raised works on 9 April 2024 to fit a ventilation unit in her property, it has not evidenced that this was done. The landlord’s inability to make this information available for our consideration is a record keeping failure.
  5. There is no evidence the landlord took any of the following actions in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy. It did not give any advice or guidance to the resident on how to manage and minimise the impact of the damp. There was no indication it had offered to supply dehumidifiers to help reduce the damp within the property. The landlord did not keep the resident reasonably informed of any steps it was taking to remedy the mould
  6. The landlord has acknowledged that, although it inspected the inside of the resident’s property a number of times, it did not inspect the roof until July 2024. This was around 20 months after the resident first reported the leak. Following the inspection and recommendation for roof repairs, it took the landlord a further 10 months to carry out works to the roof. The landlord classifies routine repairs as those that do not pose an immediate risk but cannot wait to be included in its capital reinvestment programme. The delay was a significant departure from its repairs and maintenance policy that requires it to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
  7. There is no evidence the landlord carried out any interim repairs to stop the leak. Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord kept the resident updated about the outstanding repair, or to assign a single point of contact. This left her having to chase it repeatedly and raise complaints in order to try and progress the roof repair.
  8. The landlord’s records suggest there were delays in approving the contractor’s quotes, and that once approved the works had not gone ahead. It did not provide an explanation for this. It is evident this contributed to the delay. The landlord must ensure they have adequate resources in place to meet their repair obligations. Furthermore, it is unreasonable that its process for approving repair quotes adversely impacted its service to the resident.
  9. The evidence shows there was some confusion about the cause of the leak in the resident’s bathroom. The resident mentioned to the landlord on 30 April 2024 and 20 January 2025 that the leak got worse when it rained. However, there is internal correspondence suggesting the cause of the leak was condensation coming from the extractor fan. In addition, the resident stated in Complaint A that her newly replaced extractor fan leaked when she switched it on. It is unclear from the records if there were 2 different sources of water ingress or if it was the same leak.
  10. We acknowledge that finding the cause of a leak is not always straightforward. However, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak, carry out a temporary fix, and then complete a lasting repair.
  11. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  12. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the time it took to inspect the roof and start remedial works. It offered the resident £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its failings had caused. This was in addition to £100 it had previously offered for delays in its response to Complaint B.
  13. Overall, the landlord has failed to resolve the leak, damp and mould issues appropriately or promptly, resulting in the resident experiencing ongoing distress, inconvenience and significant frustration. The landlord additionally failed to identify the root cause of the issue within a reasonable period of time, and as such, it was unable to put in place a lasting and effective repair.
  14. The Ombudsman has ordered compensation which considers all the circumstances of the case and this Service’s remedies guidance. Compensation of £800 has therefore been awarded to appropriately compensate the resident. The level of compensation awarded is in line with our remedies guidance where there were failures which have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. It is evident that great distress and inconvenience has been caused to the resident in this case due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak, damp and mould within a reasonable period.

Complaint handling

  1. It took the landlord 41 working days to respond to Complaint A, and 118 working days to respond to Complaint B. There is no indication it had tried to contact the resident to explain the reasons for those delays. This was a significant departure from the complaints policy that requires it to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The delays would likely have caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. It issued its stage 1 and 2 responses to Complaint C in 12 and 22 working days respectively. These delays were not excessive.
  2. The landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint when the resident raised Complaint C. This was only 3 months after it had sent it stage 1 response to Complaint B. Both complaints were about the same issue. It is unclear why the landlord did not ask the resident if she wanted to escalate Complaint B. By raising a new stage 1 complaint, the landlord unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process.
  3. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. In its response to Complaint B it stated that it had agreed an “effective” action plan and would make sure all works were “successfully undertaken as quickly as possible”. It gave similar assurances in its responses to Complaint C, both at stages 1 and 2. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or to track and monitor the actions it said it would take.
  4. The Code also requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. As part of Complaint A, the resident raised concerns about her bathroom fan, the leak in her loft and mould in her bathroom and child’s bedroom. It failed to address these concerns in its response.
  5. In its final response the landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and offered the resident £100 compensation for this. It had also previously offered £75 for its delayed response to Complaint B. However, we do not consider the level of compensation to be proportionate for the extent of the failings we have identified. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration and will order further redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, and associated damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff. It should include details of the actions it is taking to improve its repairs and complaint services that it outlined to us following our request for evidence. It must send us a copy of its letter within the abovementioned timescale.
    2. pay the resident £1,050 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £800 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to resolve the leak within a reasonable amount of time.
      2. £250 in recognition of poor complaint handling. This replaces the offer of £175 it had made in its complaint responses. The landlord should deduct any monies it has already paid from this total.