From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202420940)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420940

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a roof repair, and the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat in a converted house. She has informed the landlord that she has a skin allergy to mould spores and asthma. She also declared that she has mental health problems, it is not clear if she shared this with the landlord.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2024. She said it was the third time in 2 years it had carried out re-plastering work in her neighbour’s flat for damp and mould. She had put up with the noise and mess in the communal area each time. She raised concerns that the operatives on site thought the structural repairs to the front of the building had been completed when it had not. She said she had the same work completed the previous year and it still smelt of damp. She felt it was not addressing the root cause of the problem.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 May 2024. It said it inspected the damp and mould within 8 days. This determined a stain block was needed on completion of roof works ordered. It carried out the roof repair on 22 February 2024. It said on 4 March 2024 she refused the stain block to complete it herself. It said essential work to her neighbour’s flat was unavoidable. It apologised for the inconvenience and said it would ensure it left the communal area tidy on completion.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on the 11 May 2024. She said the complaint was not about the resulting noise and mess of her neighbour’s work. It was that it had completed the same work 3 times without addressing the root cause. She said all the flats in the block had re-occurring damp and mould which it was not fixing.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 August 2024. It said its surveyors had visited her property 3 times between November 2023 and June 2024. Each time the property was dry and it found no signs of damp or mould. It identified other repairs on 11 June 2024, which included roof and brickwork. It apologised for its delay in authorising the work and responding to her complaints. It offered her compensation of £150 for failures in its complaint handling and £350 for her overall time and trouble. This made a total offer of £500.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She said that although it had resolved both issues the compensation did not reflect the length of time she has lived with the issues or the effect it had on her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s compensation offer did not reflect the severity of the impact the leak, damp and mould had on her health.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the impact on her health conditions is better dealt with via the court.
  3. The resident also escalated her complaint to us because the leak, damp and mould had been ongoing since 2021. During this time, she said she was unable to use her bedroom. We may not consider complaints which concern matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  4. We made a determination on 30 May 2024 for an earlier complaint the resident brought to us on the same issue (case ref 202223664). This investigation considered events between 2022 and 2023. It also considered the living conditions at the property and whether or not she should have remained there at that time. This investigation will therefore focus on events which were the subject of her more recent complaint dated 25 April 2024.

Roof repair, and reports of damp and mould

  1. Landlords must ensure that properties they rent out are fit for human habitation. The main source of this duty is section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which was inserted by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. A property might be unfit because of damp and mould.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 13 November 2023. It is noted it had completed an inspection 2 months before, following her request for a second opinion, and found no damp and mould present. It inspected again on 21 November 2023. It found the property to be dry with no trace of damp or mould. It noted a stain in the bedroom from an earlier roof leak. Aware roof work was pending, it ordered a stain block on completion of the repairs. It also ordered a repair to the bathroom fan, which she had reported was broken.
  3. Contractors confirmed they had completed the roof repairs on 22 February 2024. On receipt of this information the landlord contacted the resident on 4 March 2024 to carry out the stain block. It said the resident refused the work as she wanted to do it herself.
  4. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires that she provide access to the landlord on receipt of at least 24 hours notice to carry out repairs. Applying a stain block is a preventative measure and not an essential repair. It does not require a qualified professional to administer it. As such, it was reasonable for it not to pursue its right to access and allow her to do it herself.
  5. The resident’s complaint on 10 May 2024 raised concerns that her neighbour was having replastering work completed for the third time. Each time residents had been subjected to noise and mess in the communal hall. She said the operatives told her that it needed repeat works because of a delay in the landlord repairing the structure at the front of the building. She said she was concerned that they thought this had now been done when it had not. She said she had the same external wall treated as her neighbour, but a strong smell of damp and cracks had returned in the bedroom. She felt this was all because it had not addressed the root cause.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response set out its actions since the resident’s report of damp and mould on 13 November 2023 until it attended for the stain block on 4 March 2024. It was silent on the issue of her most recent report in May 2024 and her concern that the external repairs were incomplete. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by her neighbour’s work. It explained it was obliged to complete essential repairs when they arose and would ensure it would leave the site clean and tidy on completion.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord, because the inconvenience of the neighbour’s work was not her complaint. Her point was that it had completed her neighbour’s damp and mould work 3 times. She said all the flats had re-occurring damp and mould and painting them with a gloss-based mould block was not fixing it. It had not repaired the structural damage to the front of the building, which was the root cause of the problem.
  8. The resident reported damp in the bedroom to the landlord again on 24 May 2024. On 7 June 2024 she emailed stating she had obtained an independent builder’s report for her flat. She said it set out the structural faults and significant works needed to resolve the problems. These included replacing brickwork, a new damp course, and removing and replacing the plasterwork. A copy of this report was not provided to us and it was not clear whether it was provided to the landlord.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response said due to the resident’s continued concerns it arranged a further damp inspection on 11 June 2024. It found no signs of damp or mould in her home. It agreed to remove and refit the radiator in her bedroom to assess the plaster for mould behind it. There is no indication it found any.
  10. The landlord’s inspection identified other unrelated repairs, including the repair of an extractor fan and plastering a ceiling in a cupboard. It also requested a quote for external work to the front brick work and roof of the building. However, there was no evidence the roof was leaking.
  11. The landlord accepted there had been failings in its handling of plasterwork and the front brick and roof repair. It referenced several visits, miscommunication and delays in obtaining and approving the quote. It apologised for its failings and offered the resident £350 compensation for the overall time and trouble caused.
  12. During this complaint period the resident’s property was dry and free from mould. Although the landlord identified roof repairs there was no leak into her flat, so she was not experiencing further detriment as a result of the delay. The amount of £350 offered was therefore reasonable. It was within the range set out in our remedies guidance for a failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  13. The landlord also recognised that it had not responded to the resident’s complaints on this issue within its policy timescales. It apologised for this failing and offered her a further £150. This was proportionate and within the range our guidance recommends for a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
  14. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould were satisfactory. It inspected several times in response to the resident’s reports, but found the property to be dry and mould free each time. It acknowledged some delays in progressing her repairs and complaint, which it apologised for and made a proportionate offer of £500 in redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a roof repair, the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.