Sanctuary Housing Association (202344890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344890

Sanctuary Housing Association

9 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the property and the associated repairs needed including the flooring.
2. Damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 27 September 2010. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom flat. The resident lives with her husband and 3 adult children. Throughout this complaint, the resident’s children acted as a representative for her. For the purposes of this report, the representatives are referred to as the resident.
The resident reported a leak coming through the floorboards to the landlord in December 2023. She reported this again on 2 January 2024 via the landlord’s online portal. The landlord classed the repair as a routine and arranged an appointment for 22 January 2024.
The resident reported the leak again on 12 January 2024 and on 13 January 2024 as the water was coming up through the floor. The landlord attended the same date.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 January 2024; the key points were as follows:
1. Persistent leaks had caused severe damage to the floorboards in the property which she had reported several times without action.
2. She had contacted the landlord over Christmas about the leak; it was categorised as a non-emergency, and the landlord told her to call after the Christmas break which led to further damage.
3. The boiler caused the leak but the damage to the floorboards seemed unrelated. The issue with the boiler remained unresolved despite the landlord ordering parts.
4. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property and said a broken fan in the kitchen did not help with the condensation and damp issue.
5. She also raised that newly installed kitchen cupboards were damaged although it was unclear if the leak had caused this.
6. The landlords lack of response had caused frustrations and the toll on the family was “undeniable.”
7. She requested an investigation of the issue, a permanent solution and reparation for the damage caused to the flooring and redecoration of the affected areas.
Following the complaint, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property to inspect the damp and mould issues raised. This took place on 20 February 2024, though the surveyor did not send the results to the landlord until September 2024.
On 13 May 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the incorrect email; it also did not cover all the complaint points. It reissued the response on 23 July 2024; the key points were as follows:
1. It had attended to the leak, reported in January 2024, within its published timescales but apologised that due to poor record keeping it could not confirm if it had resolved the leak.
2. With regards to the flooring, it raised a repair on 27 June 2024 with an appointment scheduled for 26 July 2024. It apologised it had not addressed this in the original response. It confirmed the inspection completed on 20 February 2024 may offer further insight, but it had not yet received the report.
3. On 12 February 2024 it had raised a mould inspection but as it did not have the report it would need to review and then raise the follow-on works.
4. It apologised for the poor experience and said it would track the outstanding works to ensure they went ahead. It offered compensation of £750, comprising:
  1. £50 for record keeping failures in relation to the boiler repair.
  2. £200 for repeated reporting of the leak.
  3. £100 for the delay in receiving the survey report.
  4. £200 towards replacing the flooring.
  5. £100 for delays with repairs.
  6. £100 for complaint handling failures.
On the same date it raised works to inspect the floorboards.
Following a request from the resident for a further £350 compensation to cover the added costs for replacing the flooring, the landlord adjusted its offer to £1,100 on 28 August 2024.
The landlord received the inspection report from February 2024 on 3 September 2024; this highlighted the following:
1. Significant damage to the laminate flooring in the hallway which had swelled and needed to be replaced.
2. Black mould was present in the bathroom and 2 bedrooms and needed a mould wash.
3. Works required in the kitchen to renew duct casing, sealant and overhaul the fan.
The landlord approved major works to replace the subfloor in the property on 20 October 2024.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 16 November 2024 as the floor repairs were still outstanding. She said that while the landlord had completed a mould wash on 13 November 2024, it had only done so in the bathroom. The resident raised concerns about the impact on the family health and wellbeing. As a resolution she requested a clear timetable of works and increased compensation or compensation to cover the cost of the family doing the work themselves.
A further inspection of the property took place on 15 January 2025. Following this, the landlord arranged for contractors to attend and quote for the damp and mould works needed.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025. The key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged delays at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process.
2. With regards to the damp and mould it gave a brief history of the works undertaken and the further works raised since the stage 1 response and acknowledged the property still needed further works.
3. Following the inspection on 15 January 2025, it had arranged for 2 contractors to attend and quote for the works needed following which it would arrange the necessary works.
4. It noted the property was overcrowded and offered guidance on alleviating the damp and mould in the property. It was unable to offer a house move as a resolution to the complaint but signposted the resident to its housing team.
5. It offered compensation of £1,545, comprising:
  1. £400 for the overall time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling.
  3. £150 for the future impact of damp proofing repairs until the end of March 2025.
  4. £245 towards laminate flooring at £35 per square metre.
  5. £500 gesture of goodwill towards internal mould damage.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said some of the works were outstanding and she asked that the landlord complete these or issue further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaints process and when referring the complaint to us, the resident raised other issues in the property that did not form part of the formal complaint. We can only consider matters which have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, therefore, this investigation has not considered these further issues. The resident has the option of raising the further issues as a formal complaint if she wishes to.
The resident also said that the issues in the house had an impact on the families physical and mental health. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to find a causal link between the damp and mould and the resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court and the resident has the option of seeking legal advice if she wishes to.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs including the flooring.

The resident told the landlord in her complaint that she had first raised the issue of the leak in December 2023 when the landlord said it was not urgent and therefore to report it again after the Christmas break. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to make a determination either way as to the landlord’s actions at the time due to a lack of evidence from either party. We would expect a landlord to keep accurate records of all reported issues, the lack of evidence in this instance suggests a lack of effective record keeping.
The resident reported the leak again via an online form on 2 January 2024. While the form details the leak as non-urgent, the resident detailed that the flood was prevalent in multiple parts of the hallway and occurred from the bottom of the bathtub and had done so for a month. Given that the evidence from the resident at that time did not suggest an ongoing leak and she had marked this as non-urgent, the landlord appropriately logged the repair as routine and raised an appointment, in line with its published timescales, for 22 January 2024.
The resident then attended the landlord’s office on 12 January 2024 when she reported that due to language barriers, she was unable to properly report the status of the leak, despite presenting photo evidence. This is not appropriate, the landlord needs to ensure it has processes in place to enable resident’s whose first language is not English to be able to communicate repairs and issues. Instead, the resident reports being met with threats of the police. While there is no evidence to make a determination either way in relation to this issue, due to a lack of evidence from either side, the landlord needs to consider any learning it can take from incident.
The resident reported the leak again on 13 January 2024 and the landlord attended, in line with its policy, within 24 hours to inspect and stop the leak, which it found had come from the boiler. Unfortunately, the operative was unable to fix the issue and further operatives attended on 15 and 16 January 2024. During this time, the resident was without heating and the landlord appropriately left temporary heaters with the resident.
However, it only left these on 16 January 2024 which meant the resident had no access to heating for a period of 3 days. Given that this was during the winter months, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided these at the earliest opportunity.
It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord resolved the leak. However, the landlord accepted, in its complaint response, that due to its poor record keeping it had been unable to determine when it resolved the leak and offered compensation of £50 to reflect this failing. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems to track and record repairs, not doing so has meant we have been unable to undertake a proper investigation into its handling of the leak at this stage. However, it the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the repair of the boiler, the resident raised that the operative had removed the boiler cover and would the landlord attend to replace this. The evidence shows that the landlord did not raise the replacement until 27 June 2024, 6 months after it had removed the cover. Furthermore, we understand that this issue is still outstanding. This is not appropriate, landlord’s need to ensure they raise and complete repairs with the published timescales. Not doing so caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates.
On 16 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that the prolonged leak had caused damaged to the flooring in the property. Internal emails show that the landlord sought clarification from its operative about the damage caused from the leak in February 2024. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord took no further action in relation to the floorboards until 27 June 2024 when it raised a repair appointment. This was inappropriate and also outside of the landlord’s repair timescales which notes it would complete routine repairs within 28 days. This highlights a lack of an effective repairs system to track and monitor repairs and a lack of empathy towards to the resident’s situation.
The landlord attended the appointment on 26 July 2024; it has however not provided a record of this appointment which again indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
However, the landlord spoke to the resident on that date to confirm that it had raised the follow-on works which included levelling of the subflooring. Furthermore, it chased these works with its repairs team on the 31 July 2024. Given the already extensive delays in this case, it was appropriate of the landlord to raise the follow-on works and chase the works for the resident.
As the leak had damaged the laminate flooring, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £200 compensation, in its stage 1 response on 23 July 2024, towards the replacement flooring. While the flooring itself, in line with the tenancy agreement, was the resident responsibility, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer money towards the replacement given the delays in it repairing the leak had caused the further damage.
The resident questioned this amount and provided evidence to the landlord on 13 August 2024 to confirm that the replacement flooring would cost £550. The landlord appropriately reconsidered its offer on 28 August 2024 and amended by £350 to cover the difference. It also offered a further £200 for the repeated reporting of the leak. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed a commitment by the landlord to try to put things right.
The inspection on 26 July 2024 identified that the subfloor required relevelling and while there is a note to say this work was approved by its major repairs team on 15 August 2024, the landlord took no further action to raise the further works until 27 November 2024 when it sent the works order to its planners. During that time, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates and reported the impact the unlevel floor on the family particularly her son and husband. While we understand major repairs take time to plan and schedule in, the delays in this case were unacceptable.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlords Complaints Team continued to the chase its Planning Team throughout December 2024, January 2025, and February 2025 with regards to the flooring works. However, it failed to schedule in an appointment despite its Complaints Team detailing the urgency of the issue. While it was appropriate that the Complaints Team chased the repair and kept the resident updated, the lack of urgency to schedule repairs was unsatisfactory.
It is also important to note that in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 17 January 2025, it provided an amended compensation offer to £245 towards the laminate flooring. While it offered compensation of £400 for time and trouble this covered all the elements of the complaint and therefore it is unclear why it, at this stage, offered less money towards the replacement floor than it had previously. Given that it had already offered £550 towards the replacement laminate, it would have been reasonable for it to maintain its original offer at that stage or to explain why it had changed the amount.
We understand that the landlord completed the outstanding repairs in May 2025; over a year since the resident had first reported the issue. This is unsatisfactory. While the landlord fixed the leak within its published timescales, it delayed unnecessarily in completing the remedial works required to the flooring leaving the resident with warped and damp flooring for over 12 months.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak and the associated repairs including to the flooring.
A compensation order has been made for £750, comprising:
1. £550 towards the flooring inclusive of £245 offered in its stage 2 response.
2. £100 for the overall distress and inconvenience.
3. £100 for the time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

In the resident’s formal complaint on 14 January 2024, she raised concerns about damp and mould caused by both condensation and general dampness in the property. The landlord appropriately arranged for its in-house surveyor to inspect the property, in line with its repair timescales, on 20 February 2024.
However, the landlord did not receive the survey report until 3 September 2024. During that time, its Complaints Team chased the surveyor 22 times for the report. While it was appropriate of the landlord to chase the surveyor, it is completely unacceptable that it took 9 months for it receive the report and therefore, 9 months for it raise the required follow on works.
This is not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure which says it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould where it will work with the resident to remedy the situation quickly and in the first instance provide a mould wash to the affected area. The landlord’s lack of action showed a disregard to the situation the resident’s found themselves in.
During that time, the resident was living with black mould in the property. The landlord has also provided no evidence to show it considered if it could have provided the resident with any temporary solutions to help alleviate the damp while awaiting the required repairs. This is not appropriate, landlord’s need to take a proactive approach where damp and mould are reported to ensure it is remedied quickly and effectively.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord discussed the damp and mould with the resident to understand the extent of it and therefore the risk to the resident and her family.
The landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delay and offered compensation of £100 in its stage 1 response on 28 August 2024. It was reasonable of the landlord to accept the failing at that stage and offer compensation to reflect the delay. However, the amount offered is not reflective of the delays in this case.
Following receipt of the surveyors report the landlord arranged for its operatives to complete a mould wash on 13 November 2024. The landlord has provided no evidence to confirm the exact details of this appointment, which indicates further issues with its record keeping.
However, the evidence suggests that on that date the landlord completed some other follow-on works including the overhauling of the kitchen and bathroom fans and the replacement of ducting in the kitchen. While it was appropriate of the landlord to complete the recommended works, it completed these outsides of its published repairs timescales of 28 days. Given the already extensive delays in this case, the further delay was unacceptable in this instance.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 November 2024 and in a phone call with the landlord on 22 November 2024 she confirmed to the landlord that the operative only completed the wash in the bathroom and not the other affected rooms. This was not appropriate especially given that the surveyors report details black mould in all rooms in the property. The landlord needs to ensure its operatives are fully aware of the details of a job when attending properties. Not doing so in this case caused a further delay in the issue being resolved for the resident.
Despite the Complaints Team chasing its Repairs Team on 22 November 2024, the landlord raised no further works in relation to the damp and mould until January 2025 when the landlord requested a further inspection of the property. While a further inspection caused further delays in the completion of works, given the passage of time since the first inspection it was reasonable of the landlord to undertake this to gain an understanding of the current situation in the property.
That inspection detailed extensive mould in the property and the landlord appropriately arranged for contractors to attend to quote for major damp proofing works.
The contractors attended to inspect the property and throughout January and February 2025 the landlord chased the contractors for the quotes so that it could approve and schedule the works. While it is unfortunate the repairs were dependant on the contractors, it was reasonable of the landlord to continue to chase for the quotes, and it kept the resident updated during that period.
We understand that it sent the quotes to the necessary team for approval on 19 February 2025 and the landlord helpfully informed the resident of such.
In the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process, she raised that her items had been damaged due the damp and mould in the property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had been unable to find evidence to confirm the resident’s claim and gave the resident advice on keeping items safety stored away. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider the resident’s request and while normally we would expect to see the landlord direct the resident to either her own contents insurance or its liability insurance, in this case, the landlord gave the resident £500 compensation towards the damage caused.
This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it would have been useful for the landlord to have sign posted the resident to her own content’s insurance or its liability insurance in case she felt the £500 did not cover the worth of the damaged items.
It also offered the resident advice on ventilating the property to help alleviate some of the condensation and therefore the damp. While this was reasonable, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have given this advice when the issue was first reported.
In the stage 2 request, the resident also requested the landlord consider moving the family to another property due to the ongoing problems. The landlord helpfully explained to the resident why it would be unable to accommodate such a request and signposted the resident to its housing team for support.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould could have been improved. While it completed the inspection within its published timescales, it then took 9 months for it to obtain the survey and action the necessary works following that. It did not consider the extent of the damp and mould, nor did it consider if it could offer any temporary solutions to alleviate the situation. While it did complete some of the remedial works following receipt of the survey, the further delays in this case were unacceptable.
In its stage 2 response it offered compensation towards the damaged items, the overall time, trouble and inconvenience for all elements of the complaint and a further £150 to reflect the delay in completing the repairs until the end of March 2025. However, we do not consider this amount to be reflective of the delays in this case and the impact on the resident and her family or enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.
A compensation order has been made for £950, comprising:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience.
2. £150 for the time and trouble.
3. £150 previously offered for the impact up until March 2025.
4. £500 previously offered towards the damaged items.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 January 2024, which the landlord acknowledged, outside of its 5 working day timescale, on 12 February 2024. This is not appropriate as landlords need to ensure they log and acknowledge complaints within the published timescales, not doing caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 May 2024. The response was 58 days outside of its 10 working day timescale. Landlords need to ensure they respond within the published timescales and where they cannot meet the deadline, it must communicate any delay to the resident.
Furthermore, the resident never received the response as the landlord sent it to the incorrect email address. This is not appropriate and caused the resident to bring the complaint to us for help.
It is also important to note that the original stage 1 response did not address all the points raised by the resident in her formal complaint. While the landlord acknowledged this after reviewing the complaint, it was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out that a complaint response must address all the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord provided its further stage 1 response on 23 July 2024. While it did not accept at that stage that the resident had not received the first stage 1 response, it apologised for not covering all the issues raised and offered £100 compensation for the delay and its failure to cover all the issues raised. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 16 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this, in line with its policy, within 5 working days on 21 November 2024.
It provided its stage 2 response on 17 January 2025; 18 days after the response was due. However, in this instance the landlord kept in contact with the resident to advise of the delay to the response. It said would respond by no later than 21 January 2025. This was reasonable and in line with the Code which sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the required timescales, it must communicate that to the resident and provide a date for when it would respond.
In its stage 2 response it offered the resident a total of £250 compensation to reflect the length of time the complaint was open for, its poor record keeping and communication and for the delays in both stages of the complaint.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord could have improved its complaint handling, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak in the property and the associated damaged caused to the property including the flooring.
2. Damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,700. This is to be paid less the £1,295 it previously offered, for its failings in relation to the leak and the damp and mould if it has not already paid this.
It is unclear if the works to the flooring and the damp proof works have been resolved, therefore within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has completed the works. If it has not, it must provide a timebound action plan, to the resident and us, setting out the steps it will take to resolve the outstanding repairs.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its record keeping processes and consider any learning it can undertake to embed in its policies and practises going forward. It must provide us with a copy of this review.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 it previously offered for its complaint handling failures.