Sage Homes RP Limited (202441462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441462

Sage Homes RP Limited

28 August 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 about:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Damage to her personal items because of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in the 2-bedroom, ground-floor property with her young child.
The resident discovered mould was present in the property during tenancy sign-up in November 2023. The landlord removed this prior to handing over the keys. In January 2024 the resident reported that the mould had returned. The landlord raised a repair and said it would assess the issue.
On 23 October 2024 the landlord contacted the resident for an update on the mould, and she confirmed it was still present. It arranged for its contractor to complete an anti-fungicidal wash and stain block to affected areas on 12 November 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 November 2024. She said the contractor had attended to complete the mould wash, but it had made little difference, and they had been unable to complete the job due to the amount of mould. She said the issue pre-dated her tenancy and had ruined her furniture and personal items. She felt the landlord had failed to act on her concerns and resolve the matter.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 December 2024. It said:
1. It had delayed addressing the matter and its customer service had been poor.
2. Its contractor would complete a further mould wash and stain block. It would also instruct an inspector to survey the home to establish the cause.
3. She should claim for damage to her possessions under her content’s insurance. It also recommended that she seek independent legal advice to explore any impact on her and her child’s health.
4. It offered her £700 compensation in recognition of its delay, poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble this had caused.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day. On 21 January 2024 she added to the complaint. She said the landlord’s inspector had attended her property during the mould wash, without prior notice, and without her knowledge. She felt this violated her privacy. She said he had also failed to attend an appointment on 17 January 2024, causing her inconvenience.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its process on 29 January 2025. It:
1. Maintained it was unable to compensate her for damaged items and advised her to claim through her insurance.
2. Acknowledged it had failed to inform her its inspector was attending on 13 December 2024.
3. Explained the cause of the damp and mould was condensation and insufficient air circulation. It said it had addressed the issue and gifted her a dehumidifier and ‘Switchee’ device to monitor any issues going forward.
4. Offered a further £100 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for its complaint handing delay.
  2. £50 for not notifying her of its inspector’s attendance.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She explained her living conditions and the landlord’s handling of them caused her physical, mental, and financial stress. She wants the landlord to establish the root cause of the damp and mould which she believes is due to rising damp. She would also like additional compensation to reflect the stress caused, and damage to her items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that conditions in the property impacted her and her child’s physical health and caused her stress. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the impact of the landlord’s actions on the family’s health as this is not within our remit or expertise. If she wants to explore this further, she can seek legal advice and pursue an outcome through the courts. However, we accept that damp and mould present a heightened risk to certain groups including babies. The investigation has looked at the landlord’s handling of the situation considering the known risks to the family and the detriment caused.
The resident has also requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. While this Service can consider the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about the award of damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her heating system and front door. The landlord did not address these issues in its complaint response, and it is not clear whether it responded outside of the complaints process. The resident did not bring these issues to us as part of her complaint, so we have not considered them in this investigation. However, the landlord should ensure they have been addressed to the resident’s satisfaction. We have recommended that it follow up with the resident to explore any concerns she may have with her heating and front door.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a repairs policy and a damp and mould policy, which set standards for its response to reports about damp and mould. It notes it will respond to routine repairs, including damp and mould, within 20 working days. It will take a proactive approach to tackling damp and mould and deliver effective solutions to treat the cause as well as the symptoms of damp and mould.
The landlord recognises its legislative responsibility to ensure its homes meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ and that they are fit for human habitation, considering factors including freedom from damp. It must also take reasonable steps to identify hazards and assess risks in line with the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth is one of the 29 hazards listed in the HHSRS and can impact on the physical health and mental wellbeing of occupants.
The property was a new build and covered under the defects liability period (DLP) until September 2024. In its complaint response the landlord clarified it was the developer’s responsibility to address reported defects up to this date. However, it acknowledged it is responsible for triaging reports of damp and mould and monitoring to ensure issues are addressed.
The landlord accepts there was damp and mould in the property prior to the resident moving in. It attributed this to condensation due to the property being vacant and said it treated this. The resident suspected it simply wiped the mould away. It provided no records showing the investigations or actions it took, so it is not possible for us to assess its response. However, we acknowledge it removed the mould. As a result, there was a small delay to the tenancy beginning. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience and compensated the resident which was fair.
The resident reported a reoccurrence of the damp and mould on 22 January 2024. The landlord opened a repair and asked the resident to provide pictures, but she had already done so in her initial report. Beyond this request it took no further action, which was a failing. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the damp and mould itself, refer the matter to the developer, or direct the resident accordingly. The landlord was aware the resident had a 4-month-old baby. This heightened the risk and increased the need for a prompt and effective response.
In her complaint the resident said the developer had inspected the property in August 2024 and raised a job for a contractor to assess the damp and mould. The resident chased the contractor, but it is not clear whether it attended. There is no evidence the landlord was aware of this inspection. However, we have recommended that it review its information sharing process during the DLP, so it is aware of any issues and associated actions in its properties.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2024 as part of a proactive strategy to see if the mould had ‘returned’. This was a reasonable measure, but it had left the issue unaddressed since the resident’s report 10 months earlier. It then raised a job for a mould wash and asked the contractor to feedback on the cause of the mould. This was reasonable in line with its policy position that it treats the cause as well as the symptoms of damp and mould.
The contractor attended on at least 3 occasions between 12 and 19 November 2024 to complete the mould treatment and report back on the root causes. They noted mould was visible in the lounge, kitchen, both bedrooms, and the bathroom. They said the damp monitor readings showed moisture up to 1 metre high on the walls, which they said indicated rising damp. They advised the landlord to complete a further mould wash and apply specialist paint in all rooms.
The landlord sought a quote from an alternative contractor who attended to complete a further mould wash on 13 December 2024. Its surveyor also inspected the property on this date. The surveyor disagreed the cause was structural and attributed it to condensation. It explained to this Service that the contractor who previously attended was not qualified to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould.
The resident received different feedback which was confusing. She is still concerned the issue is a result of rising damp. The landlord has not provided a written record of its inspection, but it explained its findings in its complaint response and correspondence with the resident. We have recommended that it record and retain records of its inspections to evidence its position. This is particularly important where the cause of damp and mould is disputed or there are alternative conclusions.
It was reasonable for the landlord to conduct its own inspection rather than rely on the findings of its contractor. However, it was unreasonable that it did not do so in the first instance, or ensure the contractor was suitably qualified. It should have apologised to the resident for any confusion caused because of the disparity in their conclusions.
The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident who had taken time off university and had to leave the property for periods during the treatments. The resident said the contractor told her the home was not safe, and, as a result, she stayed elsewhere for several days in November 2024. It is not clear whether this was due to the mould or because of the impact of the fungicidal treatment. The landlord accounted for the inconvenience and time and trouble in its offer of compensation which was fair. It assured the resident the contractor could use a water rather than chemical-based treatment when it attended in December 2024 to alleviate her concerns.
The landlord contacted the resident in mid-January 2024 to check the condition of the property 1 month after the mould treatment. It assured her it had assessed the extractors, and they were working effectively. It said it would raise jobs for further mould cleans if there was a recurrence. It provided advice on how to manage condensation and offered a dehumidifier and ‘Switchee’ device to monitor humidity levels. The landlord took a proactive approach by checking the effectiveness of its intervention and outlined measures to prevent and tackle further issues.
There is no evidence the resident responded to the landlord’s enquiry about the status of the mould or that she has since reported further issues. She told this Service she is concerned it will return in the colder months. She has refused the offer of a dehumidifier due to the cost of running this. The landlord outlined approximate hourly rates and advised her about when to use the unit. While we understand the resident’s concerns about additional costs, the landlord was not obliged to cover these under the terms of tenancy. It acted fairly by offering the unit and advising her on the costs and benefits.
The resident agreed for the landlord’s inspector to install the ‘Switchee’ device on 17 January 2024, but this did not happen. The inspector said he attended but there was no access. He said he called the resident and waited outside for 20 minutes. The resident refutes this. She said she had taken the day off university to facilitate the appointment and was at home. The landlord said it could verify his attendance by checking the timestamp on his car’s GPS tracker. However, it did not provide this evidence, despite the resident’s request.
It was understandably frustrating for the resident that the appointment did not go ahead. We are unable to say whether this was due to any fault on the landlord’s part, but the landlord should have provided her with evidence it said it had.
The resident also expressed concern that the same inspector attended without her knowledge when she was out of the property in December 2024. This caused the resident distress, and it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged it had not communicated effectively. It apologised and compensated the resident which was a reasonable remedy. It also said it had allocated a different inspector to facilitate a better landlord-tenant relationship going forward.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould. Most notably, it did not act for a period of 10 months following the resident’s report in January 2024. This was unreasonable, especially considering she had a child under the age of 1.
The landlord provided a comprehensive complaint response in which it acknowledged its failures. It apologised and offered a total of £750 compensation for its handling of this issue. This figure reflects the high impact on the resident in line with the landlord’s remedies policy.
It also identified several learnings. It said it would raise damp and mould cases as emergency defects in future, with a dedicated team to oversee them. It also said it would improve internal communication and documentation practices to ensure continuity in its approach. In doing so the landlord reflected on its failures and has taken targeted action to address them.
Were it not for the landlord’s response, we would have found maladministration. In recognition of the steps taken to put things right for the resident, we have found reasonable redress. However, we have made several recommendations which we encourage the landlord to consider to improve its service delivery. We have also recommended that it complete a further inspection should the resident report damp and mould in future.

Damage to items

The landlord’s remedies policy says:
1. “Our Remedies Policy is not intended to cover…payments that could be settled by insurance claims.”
2. “Residents are expected to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration, and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary and so on.”
3. “Where damage has been caused directly because of our actions or oversight, or those of contractors acting on our behalf, consideration will be given to reimbursement without the need for customers to make a claim at further inconvenience and cost to themselves.”
The resident reported damage to her furniture and personal items in her initial complaint. She provided an itemised list of costs totalling almost £800 and said she had more to add. The landlord explained that, typically, it recommended that residents claim for damages under their contents insurance but said it would consider the costs as part of its complaint investigation. The landlord’s response was in accordance with the position laid out in its remedies guidance.
In its initial complaint response, the landlord said it had considered her request but, in line with her terms of tenancy, she would need to claim on her content’s insurance. In signing for the tenancy, the resident had agreed to take out content’s insurance, or bear responsibility for damage or loss due to accidental damage.
The landlord maintained its position in its final response. It explained it did not consider itself liable for the costs as she had only informed it of the damp and mould when it proactively contacted her in October 2024. It said, had she reported the issue sooner, it could have taken prompt action to address the problem and potentially prevent damage to her belongings.
This position is at odds with its acknowledgement that it did not act on her reports in January 2024. Given it admitted this failing, its explanation was not reasonable and caused the resident frustration. It should have directed her to its public liability insurer if she wished to challenge this and make a claim for damages. There is no evidence it informed the resident of this option which was a failing.
Overall, we have found service failure. It was inaccurate of the landlord to say it was not aware of the damp and mould given it was put on notice about this in January 2024, and it failed to refer her to its insurer. It should pay the resident compensation of £100 for the inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with the landlord’s remedies policy and our guidance, and reflects the distress caused because of the landlord’s service failure. It should reconsider its position on reimbursement or provide the resident with details of how she can claim for damages via its liability insurer.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord may extend these timescales if the complaint is complex or additional areas of investigation are needed. If it needs an extension, it will contact the resident to confirm the estimated resolution time. Extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without legitimate reasons.
The resident complained on 14 November 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this on 28 November 2024. This was a delay of 6 working days. The landlord should have acknowledged its delay and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It issued the stage 1 response 10 working days later, on 12 December, in line with its policy.
The resident escalated the complaint the same day and the landlord acknowledged this 2 days later, on 14 December 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response after a further 30 working days on 29 January 2025. This was a delay of 10 working days.
However, the landlord managed the resident’s expectations by contacting her on 9 January 2024 to request an extension. It explained that, due to an error, it had not activated the complaint on its system. This was not a legitimate reason for extending the complaint in line with its policy, but it was transparent about its failing and offered the resident £50 compensation. The delay caused the resident frustration, so it was reasonable that the landlord offered compensation.
Because of the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within the appropriate time, or apologise for this, we have found service failure. The landlord should provide a further £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, in line with its remedies policy and our guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damage to her personal items because of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation (in addition to the £750 offered during the complaint process. This is comprised of:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of her reports about damages to her personal items.
  2. £100 for inconvenience caused by delays in its complaint handling. If it has already paid the £50 it offered through its complaints process, it can deduct this from the total.
2. Reconsider its position on the resident’s claim for reimbursement for her damaged items. If it does not consider it is liable for the damages, it should explain why and direct her to its liability insurer.
3. Provide evidence to this Service that it has followed the above orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the £750 compensation it offered through its complaints process, for failings in how it handled her reports about damp and mould. We determined reasonable redress based on it paying this amount, as it found service failures which required remedy.
2. Complete a further inspection of the property as a priority should the resident report a reoccurrence of damp and mould.
3. Review its information sharing process with developers relating to its properties. This is to ensure it has oversight of any issues and associated actions taken by the developer during the DLP.
4. Remind its repairs team of the need to record and retain written records of inspections, to evidence findings and provide an audit trail.
5. Ensure it has addressed concerns raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint about her front door and heating system. It should follow up with her to confirm any outstanding issues.