Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) is a new government policy that came into force on 1 October 2026, find out more.

Sage Rented Limited (202330840)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330840

Sage Rented Limited (SRL)

3 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. Damage to personal property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives there with her child. The resident and her child have health conditions.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 4 March 2024. She said that she reported damp and mould concerns in February 2023. She said that she had numerous visits from contractors but there had been no resolution. She advised that this had resulted in significant mould throughout her property. She said she had bought a dehumidifier at her own expense.The resident said that this was exacerbating her health conditions and that her child was undergoing investigations for respiratory difficulties. She asked the landlord to update her on what it was doing to tackle the concerns.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 April 2024. It said that the resident reported mould on 11 April 2023 and that a contractor conducted a survey on 13 May 2023. It said it found mould throughout the property. It said that it had a managing agent dealing with repairs, and this had resulted in the loss of some records. However, it said it had now bought repairs back in-house. It said it had been waiting on a report from the managing agent to identify the root cause but that the managing agent had not yet provided this. It apologised for a significant delay in tackling the damp and mould and offered £250 compensation. It also said it had booked an inspection of the damp and mould for 10 April 2024.
  4. The survey recommended that the resident be decanted while it undertook works to address the damp and mould. The decant started on 24 April 2024. The evidence is unclear as to when the decant ended, however from the evidence available it seems to have been on or around 10 May 2024.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 May 2024. She said that mould had been a problem since she moved into the property. She said that she reported that damp and mould had reoccurred in February 2023, not April 2023 as stated in the stage 1 response. She said that following the repairs there was still mould in certain areas and that that the contractors had damaged some of her property. She said hers and her son’s health had been affected by the mould. She also said that the £250 compensation did not cover the dehumidifiers and cleaning products she had to buy due to the issues.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 9 September 2024. It said that the resident would need to claim any damage through her insurance company. It said that following an inspection of the property on 19 August 2024, it had raised an order to replace the bathroom extractor fan. It also said it would complete a mould wash. It increased the compensation offer to £600.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 2 addendum on 25 April 2025. It said it issued this as it had done further works and had further communications with the resident, in relation to the damp and mould. It acknowledged there were delays to its complaint handling. It said that the resident asked for an extension to her decant which it declined. It said it should have handled this request with more flexibility and care. It said that while it had considered the resident and her son’s health conditions, it did not complete an equality impact assessment or health impact assessment. It said it had provided the resident with a dehumidifier and air purifier due to the reported issues. It advised the resident would need to seek legal advice for any personal injury claims. The landlord revised its compensation offer to £850 in total.
  8. When the resident bought the claim to the Ombudsman, she asked for the compensation to be reviewed. This was to consider a rent deduction and compensation for property damage. She requested that the landlord locate the cause of the mould to prevent it from reoccurring.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has made us aware that there have been issues of mould within the property since she moved in in December 2021. We do not normally consider matters that were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matter arising. As such, any events prior to 10 April 2023, 12 months before the resident made the complaint, will not be assessed in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

  1. On 25 April 2023, the resident logged a damp and mould enquiry with the landlord, due to mould in her property. At the time the mould was reported, the landlord’s repairs were handled by a managing agent.
  2. The managing agent completed a damp and mould survey on 13 May 2023. This included taking moisture readings. Moisture readings under 15% are generally considered to be acceptable. Some of the moisture readings were between 15% and 18%, which may have indicated a damp problem. The inspection notes also stated that there was mould everywhere in the property. As there was mould, and a potential damp problem, the managing agent should have considered what actions it needed to take to rectify the matter. We have not seen further records from the managing agent until 21 July 2023. In the absence of evidence, we cannot determine whether the landlord took any appropriate action, in response to the findings from the survey.
  3. We have seen emails dated 21 July 2023 between the managing agent and its contractors. The emails were to arrange a leak detection visit. We have not seen evidence that an appointment for leak detection was completed.
  4. On 6 February 2024, the contractor emailed the resident to ask if it could visit the property the next day, to carry out damp and mould works. The resident agreed to this. We have not been provided with evidence that this appointment went ahead.
  5. Due to the poor record keeping, we have limited evidence on what action was taken to tackle the damp and mould, while the managing agent was in charge of the works. When the resident made her complaint, she said that there had been several visits from the contractor, but no resolution had taken place. We also note that the resident raised a complaint as the damp and mould problem was ongoing. On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the managing agent took insufficient action to tackle the damp and mould problem. As such any failings by the managing agent are considered to be the responsibility of the landlord.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the managing agent had taken insufficient action to tackle the damp and mould. It advised it had taken over the management of its properties following feedback from residents. The landlord apologised for the failings and offered a goodwill gesture of £250. We consider this to be an appropriate response from the landlord. This is because the landlord recognised the issue, considered how it could improve moving forward and offered compensation of which the amount is in line with our remedies guidance.
  7. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said it had booked an appointment for 10 April 2024. It is not clear if this appointment was to complete repairs, or to inspect the property. The landlord said the resident missed the appointment as she had requested a decant. The landlord demonstrated that it tried to visit the property as per its commitments in its stage 1 response.
  8. A contractor inspected the property on 22 April 2024. They advised the landlord that there was extensive mould throughout the home. They identified that a full mould wash and stain block was needed throughout the property. The contractor said that all items would need to be in the centre of the room. They also said that the resident and her child had health conditions, and that they felt a decant was necessary. The resident was decanted on 24 April 2024. The landlord acted fairly by considering the resident’s circumstances and arranging alternative accommodation for the duration of the works.
  9. The contractor said it completed the works on 28 April 2024. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2024 to say she had visited the property and she did not agree the works were complete. The landlord extended the decant. It completed its own inspection of the property on 7 May 2024 and emailed the contractor to advise it was unhappy with the standard of the works. The landlord acted appropriately in listening to the resident’s concerns, extending the decant, assessing the property and taking action to put things right.
  10. When the resident escalated the complaint, she said that she requested a further extension after the remedial works were completed. This was due to needing time to organise, tidy and clean the property. She said the landlord did not agree to this, which resulted in her child having to sleep on the sofa. This was because the bed had a number of items on it. The landlord’s decants policy says that resident should move back into the property once works are complete. We recognise that the works were disruptive for the resident. However, the landlord acted within its policy when it declined the second extension to the decant. In the stage 2 addendum the landlord said it felt it could have handled this with more care and flexibility. The landlord has therefore demonstrated that it has listened to the resident’s feedback.
  11. The landlord sent the resident an email on 14 May 2024 to advise that someone would come out to look at the property on 17 May 2024. They advised this was due to the resident saying there was still mould in some areas, and paintwork was incomplete. The appointment did not go ahead, as the resident did not have availability at the time the landlord could visit. The landlord rescheduled the appointment for 24 May 2024. The landlord acted appropriately by booking a new appointment.
  12. We have not seen records that the appointment on 24 May 2024 went ahead and on 31 May 2024 the landlord sent an email asking to inspect the property on 6 June 2024. We are unable to determine why the appointment did not go ahead, however, the landlord has demonstrated that it attempted to reschedule. We understand the appointment on 6 June 2024 also did not go ahead, however we have not been provided evidence as to why this was the case. We note the landlord made several attempts over the following months to agree a new date. The resident did not respond to a number of the landlord’s communication attempts. While it was unclear why the first 2 appointments did not go ahead, the landlord has demonstrated that it made sufficient subsequent attempts to engage with the resident to complete the inspection.
  13. On 7 July 2024, the landlord asked the resident for photos of the parts of the property she remained concerned about. This was a further attempt to investigate the resident’s concerns. The resident responded to the landlord on 30 July 2024 with her availability for an inspection. She attached photos of her child’s step stool which had paint splatters on. We have not seen evidence that the resident sent other pictures of the reported damage or incomplete work. On 30 July 2024 the landlord made a further request for additional photos. It was reasonable for the landlord to request further evidence so it could investigate what, if any, works were outstanding.
  14. On 3 September 2024, the landlord sent an internal email with the outcome of an inspection to the resident’s home. It took moisture readings and said these were within tolerance. It advised there was some surface mould in a cupboard that it believed was due to lack of ventilation. It said it provided advice to the resident regarding this. It also said there were some areas of mould under the bath and behind kitchen cupboards and recommended a mould wash. It identified that the bathroom extractor was not working as well as it should be and recommended a replacement. An appointment was made for 12 September 2024. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and identified actions to rectify the matter.
  15. We have seen a job report that the contractor attended on 13 September 2024. It said that the extractor fan was working and did not need replacing. Although the landlord had identified a fault, the contractor provided sufficient evidence that the extractor was working. As such it was reasonable for the landlord not to replace it, despite saying it would in the stage 2 response.
  16. The job report confirmed that a mould wash was completed on 13 September 2024. The landlord has demonstrated that it honoured its commitments from the stage 2 response.
  17. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident continued to report mould after the stage 2 response. The landlord said it continued to work with the resident to address any concerns. The stage 2 addendum said that the landlord has provided the resident with a dehumidifier and air purifier. It said these were not items it would usually provide however it had considered the resident’s circumstances and what may help with her ongoing concerns. The landlord said the damp and mould was due to condensation and provided advice. It also said it would monitor any reoccurrence of damp and mould and has provided equipment which monitors humidity in the property. The landlord has taken all reasonable actions to identify the mould and has considered additional equipment to support the resident.
  18. The stage 2 addendum increased the compensation offer to £850. It also identified that although it considered the resident’s vulnerability, it did not complete assessments that it should have. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerability into consideration and as such we do not consider there to be any significant impact in the landlord failing to complete these assessments. However it is positive that the landlord has measured itself against its own policies and reflected on this.
  19. The landlord has shown that where things could have been handled better, it has taken action to put these right. It offered sufficient compensation and has taken a number of steps to support the resident. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s response to reports of damage to property.

  1. When the resident first complained, she said mould had damaged her property. The landlord’s remedies policy states that it expects residents to have insurance for furniture and decoration. In the complaints responses the landlord said the resident would need to claim on her insurance, for damage relating to the mould. Our remedies guidance says that we do not award financial redress for items that should be covered by insurance. As such, we consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage from mould to be reasonable.
  2. The resident said that when the contractor completed works in the property, it did not cover her possessions, to protect them from damage. As such, some items were damaged. The landlord also identified damage during its inspection of the works on 29 April 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 response says that the resident would need to make a claim through insurance. However, we note that the landlord’s remedies policy states that in cases where damage has occurred due to contractors, it may consider reimbursement without the resident needing to go through insurance.
  3. The stage 2 addendum says that if the resident can provide photos or further information about the damaged items, it will consider whether it can have these cleaned, or it can find an alternative remedy. We consider this response to be in line with the landlord’s policy. However, as this response came almost 12 months after the resident reported the damage, we consider there to be a service failure.
  4. The landlord should honour its commitment as per the stage 2 addendum to review any photos or evidence the resident has of any damage including its own photographs taken on 29 April 2024. It should consider if there are any actions it can take without the resident going through an insurance claim. The Ombudsman notes that the relevant section of the landlord’s remedies policy is at the landlord’s discretion therefore we will order the landlord to consider the resident’s claim and provide a response taking into account its own guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of damage to property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must ask the resident to provide any photographs of damage caused to her belongings during the decant within the next 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord must review any photos provided by the resident and its own photos from 29 April and set out for the resident and the Ombudsman what its decision is in relation to her request for compensation in line with its remedies policy within the next 6 weeks.

Recommendations.

  1. If it has not already paid this, it is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £850 compensation as per the stage 2 addendum.