Sanctuary Housing Association (202519852)

Decision
Case ID	202519852
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord in July 2024. In August 2024 he reported a leak. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anxiety.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs.
   2. Kitchen repairs and the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs.
   2. Kitchen repairs and the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
   3. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to:
   1. Consider interim action, such as mould washes or provision of dehumidifiers.
   2. Record clearly the findings of all its inspections.
   3. Follow its displaced customers housing procedure.
   4. Communicate appropriately with the resident about the timescale for repairs following the leak.
   5. Complete outstanding work following its complaints responses, despite assuring the resident it would track progress.
   6. Delayed responding to the resident’s kitchen repair concerns and request for a new kitchen.
   7. Acknowledge the extent of its failings when it responded to the resident’s complaint or ensure outstanding repairs were completed.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order: The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £850 for the impact of failings in its handling of a leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs. This includes the £250 previously awarded by the landlord. £150 for the impact of failings in its handling of kitchen repairs and the resident’s request for a new kitchen. £150 for the impact of failings in its complaint handling.	No later than 26 February 2026
3	Completion of work order   The landlord must take all steps to ensure that repairs to the resident’s kitchen wall, to reinstate a radiator and to deep clean and decorate are completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 12 March 2026
4	The landlord must review failings we have identified in its monitoring of repairs following the complaint process. It must consider whether it has appropriate processes and training in place to ensure these failings are not repeated.	No later than 26 March 2026
5	The landlord must review whether its staff have sufficient training and guidance about the importance of following its displaced customers housing procedure. It should provide us with details of the outcome of this review.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to consider his concerns about damaged items. It should then consider compensation in line with its policy and guidance.
The landlord should contact the resident again to review any repairs it can complete to the worktop.
The landlord should contact the resident to consider any outstanding concerns he has about damp/mould.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of a leak and subsequent repairs.
17 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it aimed to respond by 30 June 2025.
8 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It noted that the resident was moved to alternative accommodation for 4 months during repairs. It noted some miscommunication about plastering work to the kitchen wall. It said this had been resolved following its inspection on 11 June 2025. It said it had re-raised this work and that a mould wash was also due to be completed. It said it would complete plastering work and decoration after the deep clean of the kitchen. It apologised for the breakdown in service and the 2 missed appointments. It awarded compensation of £250.
30 July 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he wanted all work completed as soon as possible and a “goodwill gesture” payment for the issues he had experienced.
30 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It said it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
27 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It noted that repairs were still outstanding. It said the kitchen wall repair had been re-raised and that the radiator would be reinstated following this. The landlord said it considered its award at stage 1 of its complaints process was appropriate.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said repairs were still outstanding. He wanted work completed and increased compensation.

 

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.

Complaint	A leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

5. The resident told us that the condition of the property had affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The court are best placed to deal with this dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have investigated

6. We have considered the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp and mould and repairs. The resident reported damp and mould on 2 July 2024, when the landlord attended another repair. The landlord appropriately raised an inspection. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. However, while it booked this on 5 July 2024 the appointment was not until 8 August 2024. That was more than a month after the resident had raised concerns. The landlord later told the resident that this was the earliest date available.
7. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not specify a timescale for an inspection. But its repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it should complete inspections to assess work within 10 working days. Its inspection of the resident’s concern therefore fell outside this target. It was aware from the outset that it would be delayed inspecting issues. It should reasonably have considered other action it could take in the interim, such as a mould wash. That it did not do so was contrary to its damp and mould policy. This sets out that a mould wash should be arranged when mould is reported. It did not consider or arrange this action and that was a failing.
8. The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response that it had inspected the resident’s property on 8 August 2024. The resident did not dispute this. However, we have seen no record of the findings of its inspection. It should have detailed what it had found during this inspection. As a result of the absence of these records, it is unclear whether it took all reasonable action in response to issues.
9. As set out in its damp and mould policy, there were actions the landlord should consider, such as a mould wash or provision of a dehumidifier. Further, it had noted contact from the resident on 8 August 2024 when he said he did not want to stay at the property due to its condition. It should have considered, and clearly recorded, whether temporary accommodation was necessary. In line with its displaced customers housing procedure (housing procedure) it should consider alternative accommodation if a property is uninhabitable or unsafe. The landlord cannot show it appropriately considered the property condition and its housing procedure. That was a failing. It noted it raised work for an external contractor on 13 August 2024. But its records do not show what this work was. That was a further record keeping failing.
10. By 27 August 2024, the resident reported an uncontainable leak coming from under his kitchen units. The landlord appropriately raised this as an emergency. It attended that day, within the 24-hour timescale set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. It also arranged temporary hotel accommodation for the resident. When the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 6 September 2024, they noted that damage to the property indicated the leak had been ongoing for a considerable time. The landlord told us it was a concealed mains water leak. It is unclear to what extent this was apparent or identified by its earlier inspection. As stated earlier, it should have maintained clear records to show what it had found.
11. The landlord arranged appropriate action to resolve issues between September and November 2024. This included provision of a dehumidifier on 10 September 2024, arranging repairs with its external contractor and planned work team. During this time, the resident remained in temporary hotel accommodation. The landlord subsequently recorded that repairs included addressing pipework, cleaning mould, tiling, plastering and decorating.
12. The landlord later said in its stage 1 complaint response that repairs were delayed as it needed to arrange an asbestos survey at the property. It said it had a responsibility to do so due to health and safety implications. We acknowledge this responsibility. However, records show it had already completed an asbestos survey at the property in July 2024. It is therefore unclear why it needed to raise this action again at the beginning of October 2024. If that was the case, it should have recorded why. Instead, there is no evidence it acted to identify or consider the asbestos survey it already had. That was a failing.
13. The resident was in hotel accommodation between 27 August and 11 November 2024. The landlord contacted him during this time. But we have seen no evidence it completed a risk assessment. In line with its housing procedure, it should have done so within 2 working days. Its housing procedure sets out that after 14 days the displacement moves from its emergency process to its unplanned process. It sets out that it should update the risk assessment and consider moving the resident either temporarily or permanently. That there is no evidence the landlord followed this process is a failing.
14. The landlord offered to move the resident to an alternative property on 22 October 2024. But by then he had been in hotel accommodation for nearly 2 months. He told the landlord on 30 September 2024 that he was struggling with being in temporary hotel accommodation. In line with its procedure it should have considered alternative accommodation at an earlier stage. That it did not do so was a failing.
15. The resident told the landlord on 27 September 2024 of his concern that work had not started at the property. Further, his support worker told it on 23 October 2024 that the lack of information about when repairs would be completed was causing him distress. There is no evidence it provided the resident with a clear plan or timescale for the work. It should have done so. An Ombudsman’s report of September 2024 focused on key learning from severe maladministration cases, specifically on landlords handling of temporary accommodation. This set out the importance of good communication by the landlord to manage the stress, anxiety and uncertainty that may be experienced by the resident. Good communication could have helped to manage his expectations about when work was likely to be completed.
16. We have not seen detail of the dates work was completed by the landlord’s planned works team. However, the resident’s contact with the landlord on 8 November 2024 indicated work was complete by this time. That was 73 days after the leak and his move from the property and within its 90-day target for major repairs. But it should have recorded and provided information to show when it completed work. Without this it cannot fully demonstrate how it acted to complete repairs within its targets.
17. In line with its housing procedure, the landlord should complete a post work inspection prior to a resident returning. The resident told the landlord on 8 November 2024 that he wanted to move back to the property by 11 November 2024. He said then that he was happy with the repairs completed. The landlord arranged a date to complete this inspection on 14 November 2024, when the surveyor noted they would next be in the area. But it would have been better had it completed this in advance of the resident’s return. That way it could ensure the property was in a condition for him to return. The surveyor’s post inspection was then delayed until 5 December 2024 due to their sickness. The landlord updated the resident about this. But it should have considered alternative arrangements for completing the inspection in view of the delay. That it did not do so was a failing. However, the surveyor’s record of the inspection of 5 December 2024 noted they found repairs had been completed to a good standard. The surveyor raised 1 repair at that time to a plug socket in the lounge.
18. The landlord subsequently recorded on 7 April 2025 the resident’s concerns about mould and flaking plaster on the kitchen wall. Further it noted he said a radiator had been removed from the wall. The resident told us that an operative for the landlord had attended due to it being loose. He said the operative removed the radiator after finding the wall needed plaster repairs. It is unclear from the records we have seen when the loose radiator was identified, or when it was removed. We have seen no evidence these repairs were identified when the landlord attended in December 2024. But it should have made and provided clear records showing when these repairs were identified. That it did not was a recording keeping failing.
19. The landlord acted appropriately in response to the issues raised on 7 April 2025 about damp and mould. It completed a damp and mould inspection on 9 April 2025. At this time, it noted the resident’s concerns about damp behind kitchen units. The landlord recorded that it could not see any damp, but a mould wash was needed around the bedroom window. The following day, it also raised work to address the plaster repairs to the kitchen wall. In line with its repairs policy the resident could reasonably expect it to complete this work within 28 days, which was its target for completing repairs for residents with vulnerabilities. It raised a plasterwork repair on 10 April 2025. But there is no evidence it raised the mould wash until 9 May 2025. That was a month after it had identified this work and was a failing. Further, the landlord identified on 9 May 2025 that it needed to send plastering repairs to an external contractor as it did not complete this work itself. The landlord should reasonably have identified this earlier to avoid delays in progressing work. That it took a month to do so was a failing.
20. The landlord subsequently recorded its contact with the external contractor who said that the resident had refused the plastering work as he wanted a new kitchen. The resident later disputed that he had refused work. The landlord raised a joint inspection of the property on 11 June 2025. That was appropriate action to progress and resolve issues. However, it did not clearly record what it was doing to progress the mould wash. That was a failing as there is no evidence it had been told the resident was refusing this work.
21. The landlord recorded on its inspection on 11 June 2025 that the resident had agreed plastering repairs and a mould wash. It also noted that its external contractors had recommended a deep clean and redecoration in the kitchen. The landlord completed the mould wash on 2 July 2025. It identified on 4 July 2025 that its estate services could arrange a deep clean of the kitchen, and that plastering/redecoration should then follow.
22. The landlord told the resident in complaint responses of July and August 2025 that it would arrange, track and monitor the outstanding work. It sent details of the repairs to its work coordination team at the end of August 2025. But the resident told us that he has heard nothing further from the landlord about the outstanding repairs. The landlord has not shown that it has taken any proactive steps since August 2025 to progress these repairs. That is a failing. As a result, the resident still has damage to his kitchen wall and his kitchen radiator is yet to be reinstated We have set out an order that it now act to complete outstanding repairs.
23. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs. It awarded the resident £250 for failings in its service and delay in completing repairs. We had identified additional failing in its handling of the leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs. With consideration to all the circumstances and with reference to our remedies guidance, we have ordered an additional award of £600. This is aimed at fully recognising and remedying the impact of these failings on the resident. This award, together with the payment already made, is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.
24. The resident told us that his belongings had been damaged due to the leak, damp and mould. While the resident did not raise this during his complaint, the landlord’s compensation guidance and repairs and maintenance policy states it may consider compensation where the damage is as a result of its action/inaction. It may refer the matter to its insurer if the claim is more that £5,000. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to consider his concerns about damaged items in line with its policy and guidance.

 

Complaint	Kitchen repairs and the resident’s request for a new kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

25. The resident expressed his concerns that the landlord had not acted to replace his kitchen. He said that he was previously told by its surveyor that it would be replaced. Records show the surveyor noted on 6 December 2024 that the kitchen was near the end of its lifespan. They detailed that the landlord should consider replacement when this was economically viable. By 3 February 2025, the landlord noted the resident had contacted it to query when this would be done. The surveyor said internally on 13 February 2025 that he had agreed with the resident that the kitchen was in poor condition and should be assessed following completion of repairs related to the leak.
26. The landlord queried internally during February 2025 whether it had capacity to complete kitchen replacement. But there is no evidence it appropriately communicated with the resident about this. It should reasonably have arranged to assess his kitchen, in line with what it had previously agreed. That way it could fully consider his concerns. The landlord’s stock condition survey, completed in 2024, confirmed the kitchen was installed in 1990 and that it was due for renewal in 2026. The landlord told us that the kitchen was on its programme for renewal in 2026/27 subject to budget. Had the landlord appropriately responded to the resident, it could also have explained this to him.
27. While the kitchen was due for renewal at the time the resident raised concerns, the landlord still had an obligation to complete necessary repairs. The landlord noted the resident again raised concerns about the condition of his kitchen on 7 April 2025. He said then that the units were in a poor state and the worktop was lifting. When it inspected on 9 April 2025 the landlord recorded that the kitchen was “dated” but not in disrepair. Later it attended again on 11 June 2025. It noted at this time that the kitchen did not need to be replaced. But it identified it needed to replace a section of worktop. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider or address this concern during its earlier inspection. That it did not do so was a failing.
28. The landlord raised the work to replace a section of the worktop on 4 July 2025 with a 28-day target. But that was more than 3 weeks after identifying work on 11 June 2025. It should have raised it earlier to ensure timely progress. It later noted it attended on 19 August 2025. But that was 69 days after it identified the work and more than 40 days outside its target response time. Its delay in progressing this work was a failing.
29. The landlord detailed on 19 August 2025 and in its stage 2 response that the resident had declined worktop repairs. It noted this was because it could not provide a match with his existing worktop and as he wanted a new kitchen. However, the resident told us that the landlord’s operative advised him against the work. The evidence we have seen does not allow us to conclude exactly what he discussed with the operative at this time. However, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident again to offer to review what repairs it can complete to the worktop.
30. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs and the resident request for a new kitchen. It delayed in providing a clear response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen. Had it done so it could have provided clarity and managed his expectations about this. It then delayed in acting to address his concerns about the worktop. We have considered all the circumstances. We have also referred to our remedies guidance. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £150. This is aimed at fully recognising and remedying the impact of failings we have identified. This award is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

31. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in June 2025, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord’s initial complaint response was delayed but it appropriately communicated and agreed this with the resident. It provided its eventual response within the extended timescale.
    3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was within the target timescales set out in its complaints policy.
32. However, as set out earlier, the landlord did not identify or acknowledge all failings in its handling of the leak, damp and mould and subsequent repairs. It did not take appropriate action to ensure outstanding repairs were progressed to completion. That was despite assuring the resident it would do so. As a result of these failing, it did not resolve the resident’s complaint. We have found maladministration in its handling of the complaint. We have ordered that it make an award to the resident of £150. This is aimed at recognising and remedying the impact of the failings we have identified.

Learning

33. The landlord should ensure it considers interim action such as a mould wash or provision of a dehumidifier, in line with its damp and mould policy. It should do so particularly when it is aware its inspection is delayed.
34. The landlord did not act in line with its displaced customers housing procedure. We have set out an order that it take steps to ensure this is not repeated.
35. The landlord did not monitor repairs to completion following its complaint response. We have ordered action aimed at ensuring failings identified are not repeated.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not maintain or provide clear records of all its inspections and repairs. It should do so to fully demonstrate whether it has taken appropriate action in line with its repair responsibilities and target timescales.

Communication

37. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident about the timescale for work following the leak. It did not communicate appropriately to explain its position following his request for kitchen renewal.