Sanctuary Housing Association (202431418)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202431418

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Sanctuary Housing Association

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

10 February 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom top floor flat. We have been informed by the landlord that the resident is considered vulnerable. The resident reported damp and mould in May 2023 and April 2024. The resident raised a complaint in November 2024 about the landlord’s response to the damp and mould. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, stating there had been shortfalls in its handling of the damp and mould. It apologised and offered the resident £650 compensation. The resident referred his complaint to our Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

  1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for the failures in its response to the reports of damp and mould.
  2. There was no maladministration by the landlord for its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord failed to follow its zero-tolerance damp and mould policy, with prolonged gaps in action, delays in arranging inspections and missed opportunities to identify and address the damp. This negatively impacted the resident. However, the landlord has acknowledged its failings and offered appropriate compensation in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.
  2. The landlord responded to the complaint appropriately and within the required timescales. We found its handling of the complaint was fair and reasonable.

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 recommendations

We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £650 compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response letter, if it has not already done so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

18 November 2024

The resident raised his stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

 

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to damp and mould in the property dating back to 2023. He also complained that the landlord had stopped responding to him.

 

The resident said the landlord had completed a mould wash, but the damp had returned. He said a surveyor had inspected the property and confirmed further work was needed to resolve the damp and mould. However, this had not been completed. The resident said the damp and mould was affecting his health.

2 December 2024

The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it had initially received reports of damp and mould in May 2023. However, it did not complete an inspection because it was denied access to the property in June 2023.

 

The landlord said it received further reports in April 2024. A repair contractor attended, offered a mould wash and recommended a full inspection. Inspections were scheduled for 11 July 2024 and 17 July 2024. These did not go ahead as the landlord was not given access to the property.

 

The landlord said it referred the matter to its housing officer due to the number of no accessed appointments. An inspection was scheduled for 7 August 2024. This did not go ahead as the landlord was not given access. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for miscommunication around the timing of this inspection.

 

The landlord said it completed an inspection on 3 September 2024. It said following the inspection it had to chase the surveyor for their report, which delayed the repairs being raised. Repairs were raised on 25 November 2024. The landlord said it had asked its planning team to contact the resident to arrange a convenient time to complete the repairs.

 

The landlord anticipated the works may take up to 3 months, but it said it expected repairs to be completed sooner. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, broken down as:

 

  • £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience
  • £75 for any future impact, within the next 3 months.

 

7 July 2025

The resident escalated his complaint, stating he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

 

To resolve matters, he asked the landlord to complete all necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould. He also asked the landlord to clarify what work would be completed and to provide a timeline for the repairs.

 

28 July 2025

The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response.

 

The landlord reconfirmed the timeline of events set out in its stage 1 response. The landlord said plastering work was scheduled for 21 January 2024. However, during the visit it came to light that the damp had spread, and further plastering work was needed. This was scheduled for 10 February and 11 February 2025. Painting work was scheduled for 17 February 2025.

 

The landlord said the plastering work went ahead. However, the decorating work was put on hold as the damp continued to affect the new plaster.

 

The landlord said a further damp inspection was scheduled for 24 March 2025, but the resident declined this on the basis it was too far in the future, and no new date was agreed. Following this, a job was raised on 5 June 2025 and a surveyor attended on 11 June 2025.

 

The landlord said the surveyor identified that the damp and mould was the result of the roof being in a poor state of repair and not weather tight. The surveyor also recommended repairs to the roof and other areas of the property.

 

The landlord said it had raised a repair with its roofing contractor on 12 June 2024. It said the contractor had inspected the roof on 7 July 2025 and it was currently awaiting its quote for repairs.

 

The landlord said delays had been caused, in part, by scheduling challenges on both sides, but also due to the time needed to identify the cause of the damp and arrange repairs. The landlord anticipated all works would be completed within the next 6 months.

 

The landlord noted that while remedial work was required to resolve damp, the surveyor had not identified the presence of mould at the property, and a mould wash had been declined.

 

Overall, the landlord upheld the complaint and offered £650 compensation, broken down as:

 

  • £350 for delays and miscommunication, and any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
  • £300 for future impact across the next 6 months.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident referred the complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. He told our Service the landlord had not started work or contacted him since its stage 2 response. The resident also said he had rejected the £650 compensation.

 

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 response to reports of damp and mould.

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. We will consider the landlord’s handling of damp and mould up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response letter, dated 28 July 2024. We can also consider whether the landlord acted in line with any commitments made in its complaint responses. The landlord has accepted it caused delays and there were shortfalls in its communication. Therefore, the question we must consider is whether the landlord has offered sufficient redress to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  2. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord is required to follow a zero‑tolerance approach to damp, mould and condensation. It has a 4-step process; identify, remedy, resolve, and prevent. It must also take early, proactive, and coordinated action in response to all reports of damp and mould.
  3. The resident first reported damp and mould on 19 May 2023. The landlord arranged for an inspection on 16 June 2023. The landlord’s records indicate this did not go ahead as it was not given access to the property. The landlord did not take further action until April 2024. The landlord is obliged to keep the property free of damp and mould and fit for human habitation in line with the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (The Homes Act). The landlord is obliged to respond to repairs within a reasonable timescale under the Homes Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These obligations remain regardless of whether access is refused. It is therefore concerning that the landlord did not follow-up on the damp and mould after June 2023 and no further action was taken until April 2024. This significantly delayed the landlord identifying the root cause of the damp and mould and completing repairs.
  4. The resident reported damp and mould again on 5 April 2024. The landlord attended on 19 April 2024 and offered a mould wash. This was reasonably prompt and allowed the landlord to identify the presence of damp at an early stage. However, the landlord did not request a survey until 27 May 2024 and an inspection to identify the root cause of the mould was not scheduled until 11 July 2024. This was a significant amount of time and shows the landlord did not take early action to identify and remedy the cause of the damp in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord arranged inspections on 11 July, 17 July and 7 August 2024. These did not go ahead as the landlord was not given access to the property. We note the resident has disputed this. The evidence indicates the appointments on 11 July 2024, and 17 July 2024 were attended within the agreed timescales, but the landlord was not given access. However, the landlord has recognised and apologised for miscommunication about the timescale for the appointment on 7 August 2024 which resulted in the resident not being present when the surveyor arrived.
  6. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 3 September 2024. After the inspection there were significant delays in obtaining the surveyor’s findings, and repair orders were not raised until 25 November 2024. This delayed the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue.
  7. We have not been provided a copy of the surveyor’s report for the visit in September 2024. However, the landlord has provided comments from the surveyor. These focus on internal repairs to the property, namely replastering, and there is no mention of the root cause of the damp. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires it to identify and resolve the cause of damp and mould. Carrying out these repairs without resolving the cause of the damp was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
  8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will complete damp and mould related repairs in accordance with its repair policy. This says the landlord will aim to complete appointed repairs within 28 days. The landlord scheduled repairs in line with the surveyor’s findings for 21 January 2025. This was beyond the timescale set out in its repair policy. When plastering works did start, the landlord found the damp was more extensive than it had previously believed and further plastering works were scheduled.
  9. Further plastering works were scheduled for 21 February 2025. The landlord updated its repairs policy in February 2025, but this still committed to repairs within 28 days for vulnerable residents. So, this repair also fell outside of the landlord’s timescales.
  10. The landlord cancelled the works order for February 2025 after the resident reported the damp had returned. Following this, the landlord attempted to schedule a further inspection for 24 March 2025. The evidence indicates the resident declined this and no other date was agreed until 6 June 2025, when the landlord scheduled an inspection for 11 June 2025.
  11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will investigate and resolve issues proactively. It was not proactive of the landlord to wait until 6 June 2025 to reschedule the inspection. We note the landlord has said the resident declined the March 2025 inspection. However, it remained the landlord’s obligation to act in accordance with its policy. Therefore, the landlord should have been more proactive in contacting the resident to rearrange the inspection.
  12. The landlord’s inspection on 11 June 2025 found the roof to be in a state of disrepair. It identified this as the cause of the damp. The landlord has informed us its roofing contractor attended on 7 July 2025 to inspect the roof to quote for repairs. The landlord was still awaiting a quote for the roof repairs at the time of its stage 2 response, dated 28 July 2025.
  13. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in accordance with its policy and zero-tolerance approach. Even accounting for no access appointments, the landlord delayed arranging inspections, which subsequently delayed both the identification of the root cause of the mould and the repairs.
  14. The landlord has recognised and apologised for the delays and shortfalls in its communication. It has offered £350 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience the delays and miscommunication up to 28 July 2025 had caused. It also recognised the delays would have a future impact, and that work would likely continue for a further 6 months before the damp was resolved. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience this would cause it offered the resident a further £300.
  15. The resident has told us about the negative impact the landlord’s response to the damp and mould has had on him. He has said the condition of the property affected his health and wellbeing. 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 to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not made a finding in respect of the potential impact on the resident’s health.
  16. The resident has recently told us he has not been living at the property as he believes it to be uninhabitable. We cannot see the resident raised his concerns about the habitability of the property as part of his complaint. In any case, the landlord considered potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) in its June 2025 report. There is no evidence that the landlord’s inspection identified that the property was uninhabitable.
  17. It is evident the delays caused the resident distress and inconvenience by negatively impacting his enjoyment of his home. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may award between £151 to £400 when there have been excessive delays which have impacted a resident’s enjoyment of their home. Our remedies guidance says awards of between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where a failure has caused distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period, where there is no permanent impact.
  18. Based on the evidence available, we are, on balance, satisfied the landlord’s offer of £650 appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience time and trouble caused and aligns with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould.
  19. We understand the initial repairs to the roof were largely finished by mid-December 2025, within the landlord’s anticipated timeframe. However, both parties have informed us that further work is needed. The landlord’s handling of the further roof repairs is outside of the scope of this investigation. However, the resident is free to raise a new complaint directly with the landlord about this, if necessary.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint.

Finding

No maladministration
  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets the standards and best practice the landlord must follow when handling a complaint.
  2. The landlord should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5-working days. The landlord should respond to complaints in 10-working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1 and 20-working days at stage 2.
  3. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2024 via our Service. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 November 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 2 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged and answered the stage 1 complaint within the required timeframes.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 7 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 July 2025 and sent its stage 2 response on 28 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged and answered the stage 2 complaint within the required timeframes.
  5. The landlord considered and addressed the complaint in line with the Code. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration for its handling of the complaint.

Learning

  1. The landlord did not proactively respond to reports of damp and mould in June 2023 and February 2025. The landlord may review our October 2021 Spotlight Report on damp and mould. This, in part, says landlords should have processes in place to follow up with the resident to rearrange the appointment promptly when no access is given. It also provides broader guidance on how to approach reports of damp and mould proactively rather than reactively.