Sanctuary Housing Association (202336033)

Decision
Case ID	202336033
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 November 2025

Background

1. The property is a one bedroom basement flat, with 3 flats above it. There are double doors in the bedroom and living room, instead of windows. There is an outside storage area at the front of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould.
5. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord completing repairs that were contributing to the damp and mould. There was poor communication that meant the resident spent considerable time and effort in seeking updates and resolutions. The landlord identified the failures and offered redress, but this was not proportionate to the failings identified.
8. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s complaint handling. It has taken reasonable steps to put things right.

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 05 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the resident £634, made up as follows: £514 for loss of use of enjoyment of the property due to its handling of the damp and mould between January and May 2025. £120 to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its handling of leaks, damp and mould between January and May 2025.	No later than 05 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 November 2022	From this date, the resident reported that several leaks from an overflow for one of the properties above were causing damp in the property. The landlord attended on a number of occasions including 8 December 2022 and 10 May 2023.
5 April 2023	The resident reported the doors in the property were draughty. The landlord attended on 9 May 2023.
23 May 2023	The resident complained that the landlord had attended to the doors and leaking overflow, but the issues were unresolved. She said she had been told the jobs were completed, but nothing had been done.
28 May 2023	The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays in it investigating and resolving the issues. It apologised, offered £75 compensation, and confirmed appointments for it to reattend.
21 June 2023	The resident escalated her complaint and declined the compensation offered. She said the leak was ongoing and had been reported several times.
5 October 2023	During a call to discuss the complaint, the resident asked for the following issues to be addressed as part of the complaint: Leaking overflow causing damp in the bedroom. Damp and mould behind kitchen units. Draughty doors in the living room and bedroom causing damp. Damp caused by leak in external storage unit.
6 October 2023	The landlord’s first stage 2 response said this was not its final response. It had asked a senior surveyor to inspect the issues and, once it had their recommendations, it could complete the investigation and provide a final response. It acknowledged delays in it resolving the issues and that it had not handled the complaint in line with its process.
4 October 2024	In the landlord’s final stage 2 response it upheld the complaint. It acknowledged delays in it resolving the issues and that it had not completed works in line with its committed timescales. It apologised and offered £4,750 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has asked us to investigate her complaint. She has confirmed all works have been completed but does not feel the compensation offered is enough.

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	The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

9. The landlord must address damp and mould in line with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
10. The resident reported the leaking overflow from at least 30 November 2022. Despite the landlord attending on multiple occasions, both to the property and neighbouring flats, it did not resolve the leak until more than 2 years later, in January 2025. It attempted to investigate the leak by contacting neighbours and arranging visits, but at times it was unable to gain access. In January 2024, it told the resident it was visiting a neighbouring flat to investigate. The following month, it told her it had identified a fault with a neighbour’s boiler and a part had been ordered to resolve it.
11. Despite some actions being taken, there is no evidence the landlord took timely, follow on action to ensure the matter was fully resolved. This included not following up when no access was given by neighbours and not attending to complete identified repairs. The lack of follow up contributed to the unreasonable delay in the leak being resolved.
12. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in June and October 2023 and June 2024. We have seen internal emails regarding these inspections. However, we have not seen any formal records and so do not know full details of what was seen or any conclusions reached.
13. Following the inspection in June 2023, the landlord noted it repeatedly chased the surveyor for their report to progress the works between June and September 2023. However, this was not forthcoming. It therefore needed to reinspect in October 2023. This poor record keeping and lack of follow up contributed to the delay in this matter being resolved.
14. Following the inspection in October 2023, the landlord completed works in December 2023. However, this did not include arranging access to the neighbouring flat to resolve the leak, despite the landlord knowing this would be needed. This also contributed to the overall delay and was frustrating for the resident.
15. Following the inspection in June 2024, the landlord had to obtain multiple quotes for the required works due to the cost. While understandable that this was needed, the landlord should have considered any interim actions it could take while it was getting these, including a mould wash. We have seen no evidence the landlord considered this then, or at any point. This was disappointing for the resident and meant she was left sleeping in a damp and mouldy room for more than 2 years.
16. The landlord’s repairs procedure in place in November 2022 said it would complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. Considering that access was needed to multiple flats and there was confusion over the cause of the leaks, it is reasonable that this may have taken slightly longer than the 28 days to resolve. However, it should not have taken the landlord 25 months. This was a significant and unreasonable delay that could have been avoided if the landlord had better managed the works.
17. The resident spent significant time and trouble chasing and re-reporting the leak on at least 40 occasions over the 25 months. She also made her own enquiries with neighbours on multiple occasions as she lost confidence in the landlord doing so. At times, the landlord did not respond to her requests for updates, which was disappointing for her. When it did provide updates, they were sporadic and often only given in response to the resident’s chasers. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will regularly update residents on the progress of their repairs through proactive communication. It did not consistently do that in this case and this was frustrating for the resident.
18. The resident reported the single-glazed doors were draughty on 5 April 2023. She asked for them to be replaced with double-glazed doors. The landlord is responsible for repairs to external doors in line with the tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including outside doors. It is reasonable that the landlord completes repairs to doors, where these will resolve any issues. If it cannot resolve problems with repairs, it should consider replacement.
19. Landlord operatives and surveyors attended about the doors on at least 4 occasions between May and October 2023. We have not seen formal records of these visits and so do not know if the landlord concluded that they needed repair or replacement. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident the outcome of these visits. While some works were progressed in December 2023, this did not include replacement of the doors.
20. When the resident challenged this on 22 December 2023, the landlord said it needed to obtain further quotes to replace the doors. It is not clear if this was because it had only agreed to replace them at that point, or if this should have been included in an earlier quote. The landlord obtained the quote on 28 January 2024 and replaced the doors on 1 March 2024.
21. The resident first raised this issue in April 2023, and the landlord did not replace the doors until 11 months later, in March 2024. The repairs policy says the landlord will complete major works within 90 days. As it is not clear when the landlord agreed to replace the doors, we cannot assess whether the timescale in which it did so was reasonable. Ultimately, during the 11 month period, the landlord did not adequately communicate with the resident about what it was doing. This meant she was uncertain on what was happening and made her feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
22. The resident reported a leak in her external storage area on 7 November 2022 and the landlord got a quote for works in January 2023. However, no works went ahead and the landlord chased the contractor at least 25 times between February and July 2023. The contractor had said there was a query from its sub-contractor and it needed to requote. While the landlord provided some updates to the resident during this period, there is no evidence it considered finding an alternative contractor, which it should have done. The landlord received a second quote in July 2023, but still no works went ahead.
23. The landlord inspected in June and October 2023, but we have seen no formal records so it is not clear what the landlord concluded. Some works were completed in December 2023, but the storage leak issue was not addressed. This is concerning as the landlord had been aware of it for more than a year and should have made sure it was included in the works. Its failure to do so contributed to the overall delay in resolution.
24. In January 2024 the landlord identified that the leak was coming from the public footpath and this was the council’s responsibility. It reported this to the council on 15 February 2024. The council responded the following day confirming there were no defects in the pavement so there was no action to take. It said the landlord was responsible for ensuring its property was watertight. Despite this, and the landlord telling the resident on 28 March 2024 that it was raising this as an urgent issue, there is no evidence it took any further action.
25. It was only after the resident spent time and trouble chasing for updates in April and May 2024, and the landlord’s inspection in June 2024, that it included this issue within its scope of works. It completed the work in May 2025, 2 and a half years after the first report. This was a significant and unreasonable delay, particularly as the resident had told the landlord the leak was causing damp.
26. From the evidence we have seen, the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould in the kitchen on 7 September 2023. Despite this, when the landlord inspected in October 2023 and completed works in December 2023, this was not included. This was a failure and meant the resident was left living with damp and mould in the kitchen for longer than she should have been.
27. It was only after the reinspection in June 2024, that the landlord included this within its scope of works. This was subsequently completed in May 2025, 8 months after the first report. The landlord’s repairs policy in place in September 2023 said it would complete non-emergency repairs within 45 days. The landlord failed to comply with this timescale.
28. The resident told the landlord some personal items, including clothing and furniture, had been damaged by the damp and mould. The landlord asked for evidence of the damaged items and their cost. This was reasonable so it could assess whether it would pay compensation via its complaints process or refer the matter to its insurer. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will not offer compensation through its complaints process for damages of more than £5,000. As the resident’s items totalled £1,080 it was appropriate that the landlord paid compensation for these via its complaints process. As it has already paid this amount to the resident, we have not made an order in respect of this.
29. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered a total of £3,170 compensation. The landlord’s offer included an amount of £2,570 for the loss of enjoyment of the property for a 25 month period between November 2022 and December 2024. It is not clear how the landlord calculated this amount as it has not explained this to the resident or us. The landlord’s compensation policy includes specific payment amounts for loss of use of rooms in the property based on the rental amount. However, it is not clear if this is how the landlord has calculated the compensation.
30. The award equates to £102.80 per month for 25 months. This is around 15% of the monthly rental amounts for the period. There is no evidence that the property, or parts of it, were ever assessed as being uninhabitable. However, we have not seen formal records of the inspections and so it is not clear if this was ever assessed, which is a concern.
31. It is accepted that multiple rooms were affected by damp and mould for an extended period. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that this impacted the resident’s ability to use and enjoy the property and compensate for this. The amount offered is reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident. In addition, the landlord offered £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed is substantial. This is reasonable considering the impact on the resident and the extensive time and trouble she expended to reach a resolution.
32. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £3,170 compensation was reasonable when it was made in October 2024; as the landlord expected the works to be completed by December 2024. However, this did not happen and there were further delays until May 2025. On 29 November 2024, the landlord said it could revisit the compensation offer when it knew when the works would be completed. This was an appropriate suggestion to make. However, we have seen no evidence this happened and the resident has told us she has not had any further contact from the landlord with an additional offer. This is disappointing and suggests the landlord is not truly committed to putting things right.
33. As the landlord has not offered redress proportionate to the failings identified, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We are aware the landlord has already paid the resident the £3,170 previously offered, so have not made an order in respect of this. Instead, we order the landlord to pay an additional £514 for loss of enjoyment of the property between January and May 2025 (£102.80 for 5 months) and an additional £120 for the time, trouble and inconvenience for that period.
34. The resident has said she wants the landlord to compensate her a total of £8,000. Our compensation awards are based on our remedies guidance and, in consultation with this and considering the evidence, this amount is not proportionate to the failings identified.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

35. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 25 May 2023, 2 working days after it was made. This was in line with the 3 working day timescale in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord sent the stage 1 response 2 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with the 10 working day response time in its policy.
36. The resident first asked to escalate her complaint on 21 June 2023. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged or responded to this. It was only after she sent further escalation requests on 3 July and 7 September 2023 that the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 9 September 2023. This was 56 working days after the first escalation request and significantly over the 3 working day timescale in the landlord’s policy.
37. The landlord sent the first stage 2 response 20 working days after its acknowledgement. This was in line with the 20 working day timescale in its policy. However, as this was not the final stage 2 response, it had not properly responded to the complaint. It was a further 252 working days before the landlord sent the final stage 2 response. This meant it took the landlord more than 300 working days (16 months) to issue its final response. This was a significant and unreasonable delay.
38. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time said a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint was known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue were completed. In this case, the landlord delayed sending the final response while it completed repairs. This was not in line with the Code.
39. The landlord’s first stage 2 response said it would answer the complaint after its senior surveyor had inspected the property, which was reasonable. This inspection took place around 29 October 2023, so the landlord should have sent the response shortly after. It failed to do this, which was disappointing for the resident.
40. During the period of delay between the first and final stage 2 responses, the landlord did not adequately update the resident. While some updates were given, these were not consistent and did not give any indication of when the final response would be sent. During the extended delay, there were periods where no updates were sent. Even when the resident chased the landlord, it sometimes failed to respond. This was disappointing for her and made her feel it was not taking the complaint seriously.
41. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling, apologised and paid £500 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
42. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling.

Learning

43. The landlord should proactively follow up any no access visits and complete follow on works when recommended, to ensure issues are resolved in a timely manner.
44. If a contractor is not progressing works in a timely manner, the landlord should consider finding an alternative contractor, rather than repeatedly chasing with little or no progress.
45. Where there are delays in completing works to address the source of damp and mould, the landlord should consider any interim actions it can take to minimise the risk, including mould washes.
46. If repairs are delayed beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response, it should consider whether any further redress is required for the additional delays. When the landlord makes such a commitment, it should follow through with this to show it is fully committed to putting things right for the resident.
47. The landlord should respond to complaints when the answer is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue have been completed. Any outstanding actions after the response is sent should be tracked with regular updates to the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord should keep formal records of all inspections with notes of what it has assessed and any conclusions reached. This should, where relevant, include an assessment of whether the property or individual rooms are habitable.
49. When a resident asks for items to be replaced (windows, doors, kitchen, bathroom) and the landlord visits to consider this, it should clearly document its decisions on whether repairs or replacement are needed. It should also confirm the outcome in writing to the resident.

Communication

50. The landlord should proactively update residents on the progress of repairs, in line with its repairs policy. These updates should be sent consistently throughout any periods of delay and should not be reliant on the resident chasing for updates.
51. The landlord should explain how it has calculated compensation amounts.
52. If the landlord cannot meet a complaint response deadline, it should tell the resident and send regular, proactive updates, including a date by which it expects to be able to respond.