Sanctuary Housing Association (202402071)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident reported to the landlord that repairs it had carried out to his property to remedy rising damp, had not been effective.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about rising damp in the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of:
   1. The damp and mould in the resident’s property
   2. The associated complaint

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord has acknowledged there were lengthy delays in it carrying out works to remedy the rising damp in the resident’s property and in it responding to his complaint. Its offer of compensation appropriately reflected the impact these delays had on the resident. The resident has told us that since his complaint to the landlord, the problems with damp in his property have reoccurred.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported to it on 3 April 2023 that previous works to remedy the damp and mould had not been effective. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete an inspection within 10 working days of works being requested. The landlord’s records show that it completed an inspection of the property on 21 June 2023. This was over a month outside of its timescale for completing inspections, which was unreasonable.
7. It was reasonable for the landlord to commission a specialist damp survey following its surveyor’s inspection of the resident’s property. This is because where a landlord identifies that extensive works may be required to remedy damp and mould, it is beneficial for it to arrange a specialist damp surveyor to establish the underlying causes of any damp and what work it needs to undertake to remedy this. However, the specialist damp report was not carried out until November 2023, nearly 4 months after the landlord’s surveyor had recommended this.
8. The landlord had some difficulties with the contractors it approached to carry out the work, and this led to multiple surveys of the resident’s property. However, the landlord did not complete works to address the damp until September 2024. This was nearly a year and a half after the resident had told it that the previous works it had carried out to remedy damp had been unsuccessful. This delay was unacceptable and will have likely caused the resident and his family significant distress, as well as considerable time, trouble, and inconvenience, particularly as he had a new baby as well as 2 other children.
9. The resident told the landlord that the delays in it completing works to remedy the damp and mould in his property had caused him and his partner stress. On 6 May 2025 the resident told us his youngest child had had a continuous cough for over a year which the doctor thought could be asthma. We do not doubt the resident’s comments (and it is accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health). However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. The resident told the landlord he was seeking compensation for loss of earnings. We acknowledge that the resident had to take time off work to attend repair appointments. However, we will not generally award compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, we can consider time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
11. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation of £600-£1000 is appropriate where a resident has been significantly affected by the landlord’s errors, often over a long period of time. The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £875 for the lengthy delays in it progressing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this will have likely caused him. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
12. On 6 May 2025, the resident told us that the damp in his property had returned. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first; therefore, we have not investigated the resident’s reports that the damp has reoccurred. The resident has told us he has raised a new complaint to the landlord about this issue. He may be able to refer this new complaint to us for a separate investigation if he remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, we recommend the landlord inspects the damp and mould the resident has reported since the end of the complaints process and carries out further works to remedy this if necessary.

13. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. At stage 1 it will provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response in 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that if it needs more time to respond to complaints, it will contact the resident to inform them of this. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The version of our Code in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint, stated that if the landlord needed more time to respond to a stage 1 complaint, any extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The Code stated that any extension beyond 20 working days, should be agreed by both parties.
14. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 9 August 2023. Between 25 August 2023 and 24 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident several times to advise that it needed more time to respond. This was in line with its complaints policy. However, our Code stated that extensions beyond 20 working days should be agreed with the resident, and we have not seen evidence that this happened. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response for more than 2 months beyond its stated timescales. This was a failing, as the resident was left without confirmation of when the landlord would address the damp in his property.
15. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 10 November 2023. The landlord did not issue a stage 2 complaint response until 15 August 2024, over 7 months outside of its timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints. This was an unacceptable delay which meant that the resident was kept waiting for significantly longer than he should have been.
16. Our remedies guidance states that where there were errors that adversely affected the resident but had no lasting impact, £100-£600 compensation is appropriate. The landlord apologised for its delays in its complaint handling and offered the resident £250 compensation. The landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

17. The landlord’s records were sufficient for us to be able to investigate this complaint.
18. The landlord has told us that since the resident’s complaint, it has implemented procedures to ensure any correspondence from residents is assessed by the staff member responding to their complaint. This is positive and demonstrates that the landlord is taking steps to learn from the errors it made in its handling of the resident’s complaint.