Sanctuary Housing Association (202330672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330672

Sanctuary Housing Association

24 March 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:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow. Her landlord is a housing association.
The landlord told this investigation that it had not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident. However, its records mention the resident has health issues. The resident has a representative who made the complaint on her behalf. The resident and representative shall both be referred to as the resident for the purpose of this report.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord’s records show the resident contacted it to report damp and mould on her bedroom wall. She advised that she wipes it away, but it comes back.
The landlord’s records state that it attended the property on 6 March 2023 and applied mould wash to the bedroom wall.
The resident reported damp and mould issues again on 10 August 2023. She advised the landlord it effected internal walls within the property as well as her bedroom furniture and clothing. The landlord noted it treated the problem about 4 years ago but had returned. It arranged for an inspection as a priority job noting to allow extra time as the resident had mobility and health issues.
The landlord completed a damp inspection on the 14 August 2023. At the inspection, the resident stated she had to replace bedroom furniture due to the problem and keeps her window open slightly to improve ventilation. The landlord recorded that there was no evidence to suggest damp and mould had returned. It did state that the resident’s clothing smelt musky and recommended that she monitor the situation and make contact if it reappears.
The landlord raised a repair job on 8 February 2024, to renew the resident’s wet room floor. Having inspected the flooring on 3 April 2024, the landlord agreed it needed replacing due to its age and presence of damp and mould. This work was booked to be done on 18 and 19 September 2024.
The Housing Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 19 June 2024, instructing it to raise a stage 1 complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord logged the complaint on the same day. Its acknowledgement letter was sent to the Ombudsman and not the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 July 2024, it:
1. set out the resident’s complaint as concerns about her kitchen, bathroom, and toilet repairs. It understood she was looking for it to treat damp and mould and provide compensation for the reported damaged items.
2. acknowledged that the resident reported she had made an earlier complaint in November 2023. It said it could not find record of the complaint and the resident could send evidence so it could reassess this.
3. confirmed it would replace the resident’s wet room flooring on 18-19 September 2024.
4. stated it was unable to identify any service failures, and it had requested a damp survey be raised.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident called the landlord on 4 July 2024. She was unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response and requested the issue be raised to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. It emailed its customer relations team escalating the complaint, saying the resident felt the case handler had not addressed all the issues in its response. The landlord acknowledged it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process the next day.
On 10 July 2024 the resident called the landlord and said she was upset about the ongoing damp and mould issues. She said the issues had affected the property for several years and more of her belongings had been damaged as a result. The landlord told her it had escalated the complaint and would request it was assigned to a senior officer.
The resident called her landlord on 16 July 2024, advising of damage to her fridge-freezer from the damp and mould. It said it would include this as part of her complaint. She was also chasing an appointment for her guttering. The landlord advised the resident the job was only raised six days earlier and there was no date yet for the job. The landlord has not provided evidence of this repair, so it is not known if this related to the issues being considered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2024, informing her of an extension to its stage 2 complaint process. It said it would address the reason for the delay as part of the complaint.
On 8 August 2024 the landlord called the resident to discuss the stage 2 investigation. The resident told the landlord she was requesting compensation due to the damage caused to her fridge-freezer and furniture. She also read out an email sent to the complaints team in November 2023. The landlord said its complaints team never received this.
The landlord requested a damp inspection of the property on 8 August 2024. It said it originally requested this on 4 July 2024, but no action was taken. It arranged an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the property on 21 August 2024. The surveyor was informed:
1. of an inspection one year ago that found no visible signs of damp or mould, although there was evidence the resident’s clothes smelt musky.
2. of a history of this prior to 2019 and the customer had replaced furniture due to the damp and smell.
3. it seemed no further on, and the customer had a further complaint.
4. to report back whether an external specialist would be needed.
5. the resident had said her neighbouring properties also had damp on adjoining walls so it may be worth inspecting these.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 August 2024, which it:
1. advised the stage 2 complaint was extended due to the need for further internal investigation.
2. apologised to the resident for the inconvenience in relation to damp in her home.
3. appreciated the resident’s frustration and has taken personal circumstance on board.
4. advised its records do not show the resident was notified about initiation of the complaint process and it apologised for this.
5. said it misplaced the email the resident had sent raising a complaint in November 2023.
6. advised of the inspection to assess the dampness scheduled for 21 August 2024.
7. awarded the resident:
  1. £50 for time trouble and inconvenience in relation to:

(1) overall inconvenience caused.

(2) delays experienced in reporting further concerns.

£250 for complaint handling due to:

(1) lack of acknowledgement to the resident’s stage 1 complaint.

(2) poor internal administration, leading to missed communication.

(3) poor investigation at stage 1 of the complaints process.

(4) the stage 2 complaint extension and delayed response.

advised that in the absence of evidence showing damage to the resident’s furniture, it was unable to consider compensation to replace these. It would reinspect this if the resident provided images to support the claim.

The resident called the landlord on 14 August 2024 about its stage 2 response. It returned her call on 15 August 2024. The resident advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and wanted compensation for damage to her furniture. The landlord advised of no current change to the complaint response, and it would await the outcome of the new inspection of her property. The landlord records note that it informed the resident of the options available. This investigation has not seen details of what these options were.
On 21 August 2024 the landlord’s surveyor completed the inspection of the resident’s property. The surveyor’s report identified work as an urgent priority to:
1. replace hinges to two base unit doors in the kitchen.
2. repair plaster above the lounge door.
3. fit vents to the top and bottom of airing cupboard door in the bathroom.
Further details of the inspection recorded by the landlord on 22 August 2024, found:
1. no visible signs of damp on the walls.
2. meter readings were showing dry, even on clothes in the drawer.
3. a strong smell of damp in the kitchen cupboard and the resident reported clothes keep smelling damp and have mould on them.
4. a previous broken drain under the property and a blocked drain to the front of the property where a pipe has been replaced, may have contributed to the damp.
5. there may be an issue with damp coming through the floor, so an external specialist damp was needed to identify the cause.

Post internal complaint procedure

The landlord has provided evidence showing an independent damp survey was completed of the resident’s property on 6 November 2024. The works identified were arranged for January 2025 but have been postponed with agreement of the resident until April or May 2025.
The Housing Ombudsman is aware that on 27 January 2025, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord, about damp repairs to her property. The resident as suggested by the landlord provided images of the damage to her belongings. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint’s response on 7 February 2025. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her compensation for the damage to her belongings. Should the resident be unhappy with the landlord’s response she is able to refer this to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord has acknowledged that it was aware of a historic potential damp and mould issue at the property, from the two separate complaints the resident raised about the issue. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment will only consider events from February 2023. This is because as the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord to address those matters.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will use proactive communication to regularly update customers on the progress of their repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy, issued in March 2024 states:
1. the policy will be applied fairly, with reasonable adjustments made to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities or communication needs.
2. all enquiries are resolved at the first point of contact wherever possible.
The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation (DMC) Policy, issued on or around June 2024 states:
1. it has a zero-tolerance approach on damp and mould, with a four-step process, to identify, remedy, resolve and prevent:
  1. whenever we are contacted by customers about damp and mould, we will work with you to make sure we diagnose the problem at an early stage.
  2. we will tailor our approach based upon understanding your needs.
  3. we will make sure our teams have the skills and knowledge to tackle the issue effectively.
  4. we might not always get things right first time. Where we do not, we will work with you to make sure we remedy the situation quickly.
2. all employees have the responsibility to support residents and provide them with information on damp, mould, and condensation where appropriate.

The landlords handling of the resident’s report about damp and mould

The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould recommends landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. A lack of a timely response not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. This reinforces the importance of focussing on an accurate diagnosis at an early stage.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 about damp and mould on her bedroom wall. Its response to this was reasonable in applying mould wash to the wall on 6 March 2023.
On 14 August 2023 the landlord responded in 4 working days to a further report of damp and mould by the resident. It took timely action and conducted a damp inspection. Having found no evidence of damp, it recommended that the resident monitor the situation and contact it should the damp reappear.
Sometime in October 2023 the resident raised further concerns about damp. The landlord advised the resident this was a maintenance issue and provided a complaints email address. The landlord could have taken a more pro-active response here. Its failure to do so risked the problem worsening and increasing the resident’s frustration.
In February 2024 the landlord acknowledged presence of damp and mould in the resident’s wet room. Having initially inspected this on, 8 April 2024, it arranged to replace the flooring in September 2024. This investigation considers this meant the resident had to live with damp and mould for an extended period of time. It is unclear whether the work could have reasonably been done sooner.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the only update provided to the resident about the wet room repair, was in its stage 1 response on 4 July 2024. The landlord has not demonstrated it followed its obligations set out in its repairs policy, to regularly update customers on the progress of their repair through proactive communication.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response advised the resident that it would arrange for a damp survey of the property. This was in line with its DMC policy, to diagnose the issue at an early stage. However, the resident has advised that she has not been provided with information about damp and mould by the landlord. This investigation has not been provided with evidence from the landlord to show that this was done either. This investigation considers this a failing from the landlord relating to this part of its DMC policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2024, about damp and mould concerns. It told her it had escalated the issue to stage 2 of its complaints process. This did not demonstrate it attempted to resolve the resident’s enquiry at the first point of contact, as set out in its complaint policy.
The landlord did not arrange the damp inspection it advised of in its stage 1 response until 8 August 2024, 25 working days later. Between these dates there were several instances of communication between the resident and landlord about the damp and mould issue. It is unclear why the landlord did not identify it had not raised the inspection at an earlier stage, and whether the delay to it being ordered could have reasonably been avoided.
The damp inspection took place on 21 August 2024, within the 28-day timescale for appointed repairs set out in its repairs policy. The landlord was unable to diagnose the issue at this inspection. It identified the damp may be coming through the floor and requested an external specialist damp survey was needed. This was reasonable in its approach to resolving the issue and demonstrated it was following its DMC policy to identify the cause of damp.
The landlord has acknowledged its failure to act upon the resident complaining about damp and mould in her property. It has apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and provided £50 compensation for this and the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been more pro-active. Its records do not show it provided the resident with information about damp and mould, as outlined in its DMC policy. It has also not demonstrated it appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerability in its response to the issue. However, it recognised its poor communication and has taken steps to put things right in awarding the resident compensation. While the compensation the landlord awarded went someway to acknowledge the impact on the resident, this investigation considers it was not sufficient to put right the impact of its overall response to the reported damp and mould at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its response to this issue. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation, in addition to the £50 set out in its stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaint procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
The resident expressed concern to the landlord, about damp and mould in her property in October 2023. It is unclear whether this was a service request or an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident. However, as the landlord knew of the historic damp and mould issues at the property, it could have been more pro-active in its response.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not log a complaint from the resident in November 2023. However, its failure here meant the resident was unable to have the issue considered under its complaints process at an earlier stage.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint with the resident in June 2024. Although it apologised in its stage 2 complaint response, it would have likely caused confusion and detriment to the resident at the time.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about her kitchen, bathroom, and toilet repairs. While it apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response, its failure to address them in its initial response is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord recognised and acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It apologised to the resident and awarded £250 compensation. It also gave her a reasonable way to resolve her request for compensation.
The landlord’s complaint handling at stage 1 was poor. However, it recognised this in its stage 2 complaint response, and it took steps to put things right. The level of compensation awarded by landlord recognised the impact these failings had on the resident and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to this issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its response to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £100 in addition to the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response, for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s report about damp and mould.
3. Pay all compensation, directly to the resident and not offset it against any rent arrears.
4. Provide the resident and this service with written confirmation of the works arranged to address ongoing damp in the property for April/May 2025, clearly setting out the timescales for the work.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
2. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Code.