Sanctuary Housing Association (202419673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419673

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. An Occupational Therapist (OT) referral to assess the resident’s needs.
3. The resident’s housing transfer.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in August 2013. The property is a 1-bedroom, 2nd floor studio flat in a block of 6. The landlord was aware of the resident’s significant vulnerabilities throughout the period covered in this report.
On 27 March 2023, the landlord raised a job with its contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey at the resident’s property.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord’s Regional Director emailed its adaptations team to ask that an OT referral be made for the resident. The Regional Director noted this was because they needed to establish what adaptations the resident might need while they tried to find her a more suitable property.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord’s Regional Director asked for a desktop review to be carried out of the resident’s internal transfer application. They said this was to ensure the resident had the correct banding and that suitable properties were being considered.
On 20 March 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident said she had heard nothing from the landlord since her OT assessment. She also said she had heard nothing about what was going to happen with regards to the damp and mould she reported in March 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 9 April 2024 to say she was ‘housebound’ and now ‘100% dependent’ on her carer to bring her groceries. The resident explained, when her carer could not do that, she had no food and so could not take her prescription.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 April 2024:
1. With regard to the damp and mould, the landlord said:
  1. Roof repairs were completed on 9 October 2023 and it attended on 11 January 2024 to complete a mould wash.
  2. The resident had contacted it again on 20 March 2024 about more damp and mould and it had now contacted the relevant team to schedule a damp inspection of her property.
2. With regard to the delay in her OT assessment, the landlord ‘sincerely apologised’ for the delay in arranging this. The landlord said this was requested by its Regional Director in July 2023 but the appointment was not scheduled until August 2024.
3. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord said this took into account how the resident had ‘personally been impacted’.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 April 2024. The resident said the landlord’s response was ‘not an accurate measure’ of how these matters had impacted her as a person with both physical and mental disabilities. The resident said the Equality Act 2010 required the landlord to treat her with respect and dignity. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the following day.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024, in which it said:
1. As the resident had ‘entered legal proceedings’ under the Pre-action protocol it would no longer be able to consider her complaint about the damp and mould under its complaints process.
2. With regard to the delay in her OT assessment, it apologised for the delays in this being arranged and noted an appointment had been arranged for August 2024.
3. It was sorry its responses at both stages of the complaint process were not issued in line with its published timescales.
4. Whilst it was not able to review its handling of the damp and mould, it would like to offer her a £300 goodwill payment. The landlord said this was in recognition of the handling of her complaint and for ‘having to raise multiple complaints for the same issue.’

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s stage 2 response

On 3 September 2024, the landlord issued a follow-up to its stage 2 response of 8 August 2024, in which it:
1. Repeated its position with regards to the damp and mould.
2. Apologised for having been given the wrong information about the OT visit, noting it had been advised this was due to take place in August 2024 but it was, in fact, August 2023.
3. Said the OT visited the resident’s home to complete an assessment on 16 April 2024 and advised that:
  1. Rails had been installed on both sides of the communal staircase. However, as this was a communal staircase it was limited to what adaptations could be made.
  2. The resident may also benefit from a rail and some equipment to bring the toilet to an easier height to transfer.
  3. The resident should be put forward to be rehoused as soon as possible and would require a property with level access or with a passenger lift installed. A level access shower would also be preferrable in a new property although this was not essential at that time.
  4. The OT report had been referred to its local housing team to aid with the residents move to a more suitable property.
4. Apologised that the resident’s complaint about her transfer application had been overlooked at both stages of the complaints process. The landlord went on to say:
  1. Its records show the resident had been in regular contact with its housing team about this issue since the closure of her previous complaint.
  2. In August 2023, its Regional Director requested a banding review. Following this the resident was moved from a band B to a band A which was the highest banding it could award. The landlord said its Regional Director had advised the resident of this change on 2 August 2023.
  3. Its housing and letting teams would continue to have ownership of this matter and to provide updates to her.
5. Increased its offer of compensation to £700. This was made up of:
  1. £300 for the overall time, trouble and inconvenience caused by delays in completing the banding review.
  2. £400 for its complaint handling failures, noting this included the miscommunication in its stage 2 response.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the above principles.

Scope

The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has breached its obligations to her under the Equality Act. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures, which we have done in the following assessment.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, and the landlord has an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard.
The landlord recognises the risks related to the presence of damp, mould and condensation in its Damp and Mould policy, noting that such conditions may be detrimental to health, safety, and wellbeing of residents. It also states it will tailor its approach based upon understanding the resident’s needs.
In this case, the landlord initially took steps to identify the cause of, and remedy, the damp and mould reported. This it did by raising an order for its contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey. However, whilst this was raised in March 2023, the landlord did not chase the contractor until May 2023. The survey was then not completed until 28 June 2023, 3 months after the job was raised. This was a long time for the resident to have to wait for this to be carried out, most especially given her significant vulnerabilities.
The recommendations made following the survey of 28 June 2023 were for the landlord to:
1. Carry out minor crack repairs to the door revels plaster.
2. Apply a mould wash to the internal face of the french doors, leading onto the roof patio, as a precaution.
3. To appoint a structural surveyor to report on the render cracking.
When they forwarded their report to the landlord, the contractor also recommended a roof inspection be carried out. The contractor was evidently concerned about the resident’s wellbeing, reporting she had ‘broken down and cried a few times’ when they were in her flat. To help support the resident, the contractor asked if the landlord’s well-being team, as well as her support worker, could be involved.
The landlord’s response to the contractor’s concerns was that its ‘well-being escalations team would not get involved if there was no repair to chase’. This was a cursory and dismissive response and showed a lack of regard to its obligations to the resident under the Equality Act 2010 and its own Damp and mould policy.
A job for the roof was raised by the landlord on 14 July 2023. The landlord called the resident on 20 July 2023 to confirm this had been raised. However, the roof works were not completed until 9 October 2023. Whilst the landlord noted the resident was ‘happy’ with the works, that these were not completed until some 3 months after the job was raised represents a failure on its part.
We have seen no evidence of the landlord arranging for crack repairs to the door revels plaster. Nor have we seen evidence of a structural surveyor being engaged to report on the render cracking at that time.
As the landlord noted in its stage 1 response, a mould wash was also not carried out until 11 January 2024, some 7 months after this had been recommended.
On 4 January 2024, the landlord said, following a meeting ‘that morning’, the resident’s building had been identified as a ‘larger ongoing project’. The landlord said it would be tendering for these works in February 2024, which it did.
Whilst we acknowledge the works to the resident’s property might be complex, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this to the resident, to manage her expectations. However, we have seen no evidence of it doing so at that time, which would understandably cause her further distress and inconvenience by not knowing the landlord’s position.
Further, it is noted it was not until after this decision was made that the mould wash was carried out at the resident’s property on 11 January 2024.
On 23 April 2024, the landlord raised a job for another damp survey to be carried out at the resident’s property. However, its records note that this was cancelled on 17 July 2024 as its staff ‘were not comfortable’ working in the resident’s property. Had the landlord not so quickly dismissed its contractor’s suggestion in June 2023, over a year earlier, of it providing the resident with support, this may not have been the case.
Following the cancellation of this job, further damp works were carried out by the landlord on 6 August 2024, almost 4 months after the landlord raised the job for another damp and mould survey on 23 April 2024.
The complaint process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It also provided it with the opportunity to put any failures right, to recognise any detriment to the resident and to learn from the outcomes.
In its stage 1 response of 15 April 2024, the landlord set out what actions it had taken to that point, but failed to acknowledge:
1. The delay in the damp and mould inspection, raised on 27 March 2023, being completed.
2. That the mould wash was not carried out until 7 months, and the roof repairs not until almost 4 months, after they had been recommended.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it could no longer consider its handling of the damp and mould under its complaints process. The landlord maintained the same position in its follow-up correspondence of 3 September 2024. The landlord said this was because the resident had ‘entered legal proceedings’ under the Pre-action protocol.
This was not a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. This is because:
1. A Claim Form and Particulars of Claim had not been filed with the court at that time. As such, legal proceedings, as defined in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), had not commenced.
2. The Pre-Action Protocol Letter from the resident’s solicitor was not received until 5 June 2024 and after the landlord’s stage 2 response was due.
3. That the landlord delayed its final response until 8 August 2024, did not make it reasonable for it to refuse to provide a response to the resident’s complaint.
Not providing a final response to this matter would have understandably caused further distress and upset to the resident.
The landlord told us both the internal and external repairs to the resident’s property were completed in November 2024. The resident confirmed this to us, in April 2025, advising the external works had been completed, another mould wash had been carried out and she had experienced no further damp and mould since then.
This would mean the ’larger ongoing’ works were completed at least 10 months after the landlord’s decision to take this approach with regard to the damp and mould issues at the resident’s property. This was also some 20 months after it first raised a damp survey of the resident’s home in March 2023.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, in-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations, which we are not satisfied the landlord did in this case.
Given the significant failures identified in this investigation, we have made a finding of maladministration in this case. To put this right the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her £750 compensation. This figure is in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance where there has been a failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
Had the landlord not ultimately carried out works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made in this case.
Given that no mention was made to learning in its responses, the landlord has been ordered to review its handling of this element of the resident’s complaint. This is to include:
1. Its overall management of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This must include its communication with the resident, from when it first raised the damp and mould survey in March 2023 to when the repairs were completed in November 2024.
2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident and its response to its contractors suggestion that she may need additional support. This is to include a review of its staff training needs to ensure all relevant officers understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, with regard to meeting the needs of individual residents when providing a service to them.
3. Its decision not to provide the resident with a final response to her complaint about this matter on the basis that her solicitor had sent it a Pre-Action Protocol Letter.

Handling of an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral to assess the resident needs

The landlord’s initial actions with regards to assessing the resident’s needs were appropriate and recognised the importance of establishing what adaptations she might need while waiting for a move to a more suitable property.
The OT assessment was requested on 20 July 2023. On 1 August 2023, the OT contacted the landlord to confirm they would be visiting the resident on 16 August 2023. The landlord’s Regional Director confirmed the date of the OT’s assessment with the resident and said they would call her again on 17 August 2023 to make sure the visit went ahead.
We have seen no evidence of the assessment being carried out on 16 August 2023 nor of the landlord chasing this up with the OT. We have also seen no evidence of the landlord’s Regional Director contacting the resident, as promised, to make sure the OT assessment had gone ahead.
A further OT assessment was not then arranged until 17 April 2024, by which time some 9 months had passed since this was first requested.
This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait and represents a significant failure by the landlord. It was aware of the resident’s significant vulnerabilities, that she was struggling to manage in her home and that it was likely to be some time before she was offered another property. The resident’s Wellbeing Advocate worker had also told the landlord on 31 August 2023, 2 weeks after the assessment was due to take place, that the resident felt trapped and not able to move around due to her mobility restrictions.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord apologised for the delay in the OT assessment being arranged. However, due to its error in stating the assessment was meant to take place in August 2024 and not August 2023, it failed to recognise the extent of its failure.
In its follow-up stage 2 the landlord recognised this error for which it apologised and offered the resident £300 compensation. This was offered for the overall time, trouble and inconvenience caused by ‘delays in completing the banding review.’ However, this appears to have been a further error as the banding review was completed before the OT assessment was due to take place.
Regardless, given the level of failure by the landlord and the significant impact this had on the resident, we are not satisfied that £300 compensation is proportionate to the level of failure with regards to this issue. As such a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £450. This brings the total compensation for this element of the resident’s complaint to £750. This figure is in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance where there has been a failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
Had the landlord not acknowledged its failure and made an attempt to provide redress, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
We have not seen a copy of the OT assessment from 17 April 2024 and therefore have been unable to assess whether the landlord’s response to any recommendations was reasonable. The resident told us on 23 April 2025 the landlord had fitted another rail in the communal stairway; however, this was not to the specification of the OT. She also said the landlord did not address the lack of railing in the communal hallway (leading to the stairway), or the railings required up the 8 steps leading to the communal front door.
Given the lack of clarity with regards to this matter, the landlord has also been ordered to review its records against the OT assessment from 17 April 2024 to ensure, where feasible, any recommendations have now been carried out. If there are any outstanding recommendations, the landlord is to arrange for these to be completed. If the landlord believes that any of the recommendations are not feasible it is to discuss this with an OT to see whether there are any alternative solutions it could undertake.

Handling of the resident’s housing transfer

Prior to the period covered in this report, the landlord had agreed to an internal housing transfer for the resident, for which it had awarded her a band B priority.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord’s regional director asked that a desktop review be carried out of the resident’s transfer application. They explained this was to ensure her banding was correct and the landlord was actively considering suitable properties for her.
The following day, 2 August 2023, the landlord’s Regional Director called the resident to confirm her rehousing application had been reviewed and she had been awarded a band A.
It is evident the landlord recognised the need for the resident to move as quickly as possible and the actions it took with regards to her housing transfer were both fair and reasonable.
Whilst we acknowledge the situation has been distressing for the resident, we would not order the landlord to move her as part of our investigation.
Given the limited availability of suitable alternative social housing, it would also not be appropriate for us to determine that the length of time the resident has had to wait was a failure on the landlord’s part. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord, or the needs of other residents waiting to be moved.
In addition to managing the resident’s internal transfer, the landlord would also be expected to engage and respond with the council with regards to its housing register and the resident’s, ‘Pan London Housing’ referral. If the resident has any concerns about how the council handled these matters she would need to raise her concerns with the council itself. If she were then not satisfied with the council’s response she would need to refer her concerns to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The council’s Connected Communities Coach emailed the resident on 6 June 2023 to say they were waiting for the landlord’s approval of her ‘Pan London Housing’ application.
However, the first contact we have seen from the council regarding the resident’s transfer was on 24 July 2023. This made no reference to the resident’s ‘Pan London Housing’ referral.
On 31 August 2023, the resident’s Wellbeing Advocate worker emailed the landlord to say it had impacted the resident’s ‘Pan London Housing’ referral because its approval was required.
On 8 September 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the uncertainty of her Pan London application. The landlord said her application had now been approved and when a property became available she would be contacted to arrange a viewing.
Given the lack of evidence as to when the council first asked the landlord to approve the ‘Pan London Housing’ application, it has not been possible for us to assess whether its apology provided the resident with reasonable redress or not. However, overall, and considering all the available evidence, we are satisfied there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s housing transfer.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Regardless of what stage the complaint is at, if any extension is needed, this would be communicated to the resident.
The landlord does not dispute there were failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 25 March 2024. The landlord advised the resident she would receive its proposed resolution within 10 working days.
On 6 April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the delay in its response to her complaint. The landlord explained that this was because it needed further time to carry out the investigation. The landlord said it would provide its stage 1 response by 19 April 2024, which it did.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 April 2024, which the landlord acknowledged the same day.
On 22 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the delay in its stage 2 response. The landlord said this was because it ‘was not in a position to respond’ at that time. The landlord said it would contact the resident within 10 working days. Which it did not do. Its stage 2 response not being issued until 8 August 2024.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 for which it offered the resident £300 compensation. It is unclear what the landlord was referring to when it said this was also for the resident ‘having to raise multiple complaints for the same issue. It also:
1. Gave the wrong dates for when the OT visit took place, saying this was not scheduled until August 2024 when it had in fact been scheduled in August 2023.
2. Failed to provide a response about the resident’s transfer.
A month after its stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to the resident again acknowledging these failures. The landlord apologised, provided its response to the resident’s complaint about her transfer, and offered her an additional £100 for its complaint handling failures bringing the total offered to £400.
Overall, whilst there were evident failures by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, we are satisfied that its acknowledgment, apology and offer of £400 for those failures was sufficient to put things right. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress has been made with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint.
That it provided no response about the damp and mould was considered as part of our assessment of that issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral to assess the resident’s needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s housing transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,500. This is made up of:
  1. £750 for the significant impact of its failures with regards to is handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £750 for the significant impact of its failures with regards to the OT assessment had on her. This amount includes the £300 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid. If it has the landlord is only to pay the additional £450 ordered by us.
3. Review its records against the OT assessment from 17 April 2024 to ensure, where feasible, any recommendations have now been carried out. If there are any outstanding recommendations, the landlord is to arrange for these to be completed. If the landlord believes that any of the recommendations are not feasible it is to discuss this with an OT to see whether there are any alternative solutions it could undertake. The landlord is to confirm the actions it has taken with regards to this order.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is also to ordered to carry out a review of our findings in this case. This is to include:
1. Its overall management of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This must include its communication with the resident, from when it first raised the damp and mould survey in March 2023 to when the repairs were completed in November 2024.
2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident and its response to its contractors suggestion that she may need additional support. This is to include a review of its staff training needs to ensure all relevant officers understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, with regard to meeting the needs of individual residents when providing a service to them.
3. Its decision not to provide the resident with a final response to her complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould on the basis that her solicitor had sent it a Pre-Action Protocol Letter.
4. The landlord is to confirm to us what its findings were, what learning it has taken and what action it intends to ensure the failures identified in this report do not happen again
Confirm compliance with the above orders within the above timescales.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay the resident the £400 it offered in respect of its complaint handling failures. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent of this payment being made.