Sanctuary Housing Association (202440324)

Decision
Case ID	202440324
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 March 2026

Background

1. The resident referenced the impact of damp on his young child’s health throughout the complaint. He made multiple complaints that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process between December 2023 and December 2024. These were about leaking gutters, damp, the heating system and a roof repair.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Gutter repairs.
   2. The resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and the heating system.
   3. Repairs to the roof.
   4. The resident’s complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Gutter repairs.
   2. The resident’s complaints.
4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and the heating system.
   2. Repairs to the roof.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord recognised significant delays in its handling of the gutter repair. It put things right through its complaints process by arranging the repair and offering proportionate compensation.
6. The landlord recognised delays and poor communication in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp, mould, and the heating system. However, it did not fully address his request that it upgrade the heating system, his concerns that the heating was unaffordable, or the impact of the situation on his son’s health. It did not show that it completed repairs in full.
7. The landlord offered suitable compensation to put right the impact of the delay in arranging roof repairs through its complaints process. However, it has not shown it acted in line with agreed actions or learnt from the complaint.
8. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising delays and poor communication in relation to its complaint handling. Its offer of compensation was proportionate 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 should have due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900, comprised of: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his concerns about damp, mould, and the heating system £50 for the time and trouble caused in relation to its handling of repairs to the roof £700 as previously offered for these aspects of the complaint The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. The landlord must provide evidence it has paid this directly to the resident by the due date	No later than 27 April 2026
3	Action order The landlord must inspect the property to determine if it completed previous work to replace the heater on the landing, and to install a heater in the bathroom. It should also inspect for any further signs of damp and mould, and check whether it completed previous work to the roof. It should raise work accordingly. The landlord must write to the resident by the due date to provide the outcome of the inspection and timescales for any work it intends to complete. It should also respond to the resident’s request for it to upgrade the heating system and explain its position. It should also provide a copy of the asbestos survey previously completed as requested by the resident. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance by the due date.	No later than 11 May 2026
4	Action order The landlord must contact the resident to ensure it has an up-to-date record of any household vulnerabilities. It should update its records to inform its response to future repairs. It must provide evidence it has done so by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord pays the resident £625 as previously offered if it has not already done so. We made the findings of reasonable redress for its handling of gutter repairs and the complaints on the basis that it paid this amount.
We recommend that the landlord reviews its handling of the resident’s complaints to identify points of learning in how it responds to concerns related to medical and financial vulnerability.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
December 2023 to January 2024	The resident raised a complaint on 13 December 2023 about the inefficiency of the heating system. He treated mould on the bathroom and bedroom windows monthly, and said the property was cold. He said this impacted his 2-year-old son, who experienced chest infections. The storage heaters in place were unaffordable, undersized, and inefficient. He wanted it to upgrade the heating system and complete an inspection. He reiterated he wanted it to raise a formal complaint on 3 January 2024.
16 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It found that the resident had not reported the issues previously. It could not uphold the complaint as it was not on notice of the problems. It booked an appointment for 23 January 2024 to address his concerns.
3 June 2024	The resident raised a further complaint. He was unhappy with the lack of communication and that operatives arrived with no knowledge of the work needed. A guttering repair had been outstanding for around a year. He also told it he would not be available for an appointment, and it marked it as “missed”.
17 June 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint as it exceeded its published timescales when addressing the gutter repair. It received a quote for the gutter on 9 June 2023, but it did not send this to its contractor to complete. It apologised for the delay. It offered £75 compensation.
21 June 2024	The resident said his main concern was the ineffective and unaffordable heating system, which contributed to mould growth. He detailed the impact the situation had on his son and provided medical evidence. He added there was mould up the wall where it had not fixed the gutter, no vents on windows, and no radiator in the bathroom. He escalated the complaints on 14 July 2024.
10 September 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It said it completed the gutter repairs in July 2024 and apologised that this took much longer than expected. It recognised delays in its complaint handling. It also recognised poor communication, and that it had not paid compensation as agreed. It offered £425 compensation and would contact him about his request to be rehoused.
11 September 2024	The landlord sent another stage 2 complaint response in relation to damp, mould, and the heating system. It listed work it had completed and accepted that there were delays and poor communication through the complaints process. It said it completed some repairs within its timescales, but there were delays in it completing an asbestos survey and receiving the report. It expected further delays while it gained a quote to remove the bathroom ceiling coating. It would complete remaining repairs to install heaters, and replace the bathroom fan, following this. It included a projected timescale of 90 days once the work was approved and initiated. It offered £525 compensation for his time, trouble, and inconvenience, and its complaint handling.
9 October 2024	The resident raised another complaint. The landlord had contacted him while he was away and said it would be visiting to replace some broken roof tiles. He returned home and the work was not complete. He asked why it did not complete the work and when it would return.
25 October 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It said it was made aware that some roof tiles needed replacing in February 2024. It raised this to contractors in August 2024. They attempted to attend in September 2024; however, the resident was away. It apologised for the delay, and he was only made aware of the appointment at short notice. It offered £175 for the delay and poor communication. It said it would contact him to arrange work within 10 days.
24 November 2024	The resident asked to escalate the complaints. He said he did not want to live in the property anymore and said water came through the walls. He felt it ignored his concerns and the impact on health. On 2 December 2024, he listed his ongoing concerns about damp, mould, the ineffective heating system, concerns about the asbestos work, and said it had not yet fixed the roof tiles.
13 December 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It confirmed that roof operatives did attend in September 2024 but did not have sufficient materials on the visit. They were due to complete work by the end of the following week. It asked him to raise any internal works needed once it repaired the tiles. It offered an additional £200.
Early 2025	The landlord completed work to remove and replace the bathroom ceiling and install a fan in January 2025. It also completed work to overhaul 3 upstairs windows and treat mould in February 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us to investigate. He was unhappy that the landlord did not reference his comments regarding his son’s health. He shared that it had not fitted a heater in the bathroom and wanted the landlord to upgrade the heating system or move him. He also wanted a copy of the asbestos survey he had requested.

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 gutter repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

9. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repair to the gutters. The landlord has acted reasonably by recognising that there was a delay in progressing the gutter repair following the resident’s initial report on 12 May 2023. It confirmed that while it approved a quote in June 2023, it did not instruct its contractor to complete the work. It acted fairly by apologising for the delay and recognised that this was due to an administrative oversight.
10. The landlord has not provided a clear record of the work; however, it is not in dispute that it completed the work in July 2024. This was within a reasonable timescale following the complaint in June given the need to requote for work.
11. The landlord offered £225 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience due to the delays. Our remedies guidance states that amounts in this range can be proportionate where there has been maladministration by a landlord, but where there may be no permanent impact. Overall, the landlord’s offer was sufficient to put right the impact of its failings.

Complaint	The resident’s reports about damp, mould, and the heating system.
Finding	Service failure

12. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including the roof, walls, and windows. It is also responsible for the installations it provides for space heating. Its damp, mould, and condensation policy (May 2024) confirms it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Its repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 to 45 days.
13. The landlord initially arranged an inspection for 23 January 2024, 41 days after the resident raised concerns. It should have arranged this sooner given the impact he said the situation had on his young son’s health. Its repairs policy specifies that it would provide an enhanced service of 28 days for those with vulnerabilities. It was a failing that it did not apply this.
14. The resident was not available for the initial appointment, and the inspection took place on 7 February 2024. The surveyor shared the work required on 9 February 2024. On 27 February 2024, the landlord asked the resident if contractors had completed work. This shows that it did not have clear records of the proposed actions. It attended to treat mould, fix the porch gutter and roof tile, and assess the windows and heaters between April and May 2024, these were outside of its routine and enhanced repair timescales. We note that the resident had already completed work to treat mould and repair his front door at the time.
15. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising its poor communication and a lack of follow-up between February and August 2024. It tried to arrange to install trickle vents on 2 August 2024. Its records indicate that it informed the resident of the appointment the day before, which was likely to be inconvenient. It completed the visit on 16 September 2024, but the resident said he did not need trickle vents. The delay was unlikely to change the overall outcome of the complaint.
16. However, the resident also reported issues of draughts from the windows in his initial complaint in December 2023. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord sought to address this at the time of the complaint. It did not appear to address this until February 2025, when it overhauled the windows.
17. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays in arranging an asbestos survey and gaining the report between March and August 2024. It needed to complete this before it could begin work to the bathroom. It recognised that there were likely to be further delays. It was resolution focused when offering compensation toward the projected 90-day completion period once works were approved. It informed the resident that it scheduled to complete works in January 2025. This was slightly outside of the 90-day timeframe provided. It is unclear how the landlord established that this timescale was reasonable, given the impact the resident said the situation had on his son’s health.
18. The landlord has shared that it replaced heaters in the hallway, landing, bathroom and kitchen in March 2024. However, in its stage 2 complaint response it said that it would complete work to install a heater in the bathroom and hallway following work to the bathroom ceiling. We have not seen evidence to show that it completed this following the bathroom ceiling work in January 2025, and the resident has confirmed that there is no heater in the bathroom. This was a failure to monitor agreed complaint actions through to completion.
19. Within his complaint communication, the resident raised specific concern that the storage heaters were ineffective, and unaffordable. Alongside any work to ensure the heating system was working effectively, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted him to financial support if needed. It did not address his request for a more energy efficient heating system in its complaint responses which was a failing. This meant that the resident needed to continue to pursue his concerns on 14 September 2024, shortly after the complaint. He is still unsure whether there is a plan in place to address this.
20. The resident informed the landlord of the impact of the damp and mould on his young son’s health throughout the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge his concerns at any stage and has not shown that it considered any household vulnerabilities when handling the repairs. Acknowledging his concerns and medical evidence provided would have gone some way to reassure the resident it was handling the matter seriously.

Summary

21. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays in its handling of the repairs and it did not communicate effectively. Its offer of £325 compensation goes some way to recognise the impact on the resident. However, it did not suitably address the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the heating, or his request for a heating upgrade. In addition, it did not demonstrate that considered the resident’s concerns about the impact of the situation on his young child’s health. It committed to installing the bathroom and landing heater following work to the bathroom ceiling, however, there is no evidence this happened.
22. We have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to inspect the property to work out whether it completed work to install heaters and arrange this if needed. It should respond to the resident’s request for it to upgrade the heating system. It should also contact the resident to discuss any household vulnerabilities to ensure it has an up-to-date record.

Complaint	Repairs to the roof.
Finding	Service failure

23. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof. It has not provided clear evidence to show when it was first made aware of a repair needed to the roof. It reported completing work the porch roof tile on 30 May 2024, but there is no other reference to damaged roof tiles at the time. It has not disputed that it was aware of the work needed from 9 February 2024, and there was a delay in raising work to its contractors until 21 August 2024. This was over 6 months later and outside its policy timescale of 90 days for major works.
24. The landlord noted that operatives attended in September 2024, while the resident was away, but could not complete the works as they did not have the right number of tiles. This indicates that it did not suitably prepare for the work needed or record the extent of work required prior to the visit, which is a record keeping failure and extended the timeframe of the repair.
25. At stage 1, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the delay, and that the resident was only made aware of the appointment in September 2024 at short notice. It recognised that it had not communicated effectively. Despite committing to review the repairs needed within 10 days(4 November 2024), it has not provided evidence to show this took place.
26. In its stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2024, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the further delay and poor communication but offered no explanation for these failings. It committed to replacing the roof tiles by the end of the following week. However, the resident contacted it on 17 January 2025 to say that it had not fixed the roof tiles. It has not provided evidence to show the reason for the delay, or if an appointment took place in December 2024. This was a failure to monitor agreed complaint actions through to completion. It is unclear when the roof repair took place, however, we have not seen evidence of further reports, showing this may be resolved.
27. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs. The landlord offered £375 for this aspect of the complaint. This can be said to put right the impact of the delay on the resident at the time. However, the landlord did not show it had learnt from the complaint. It has not shown it improved its communication or completed work within the agreed timescale. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation, and to confirm that it completed the repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaints
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are April 2022 and April 2024. The landlord’s complaint policies comply with the Code. The resident made multiple complaints that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, and we have considered these individually below.
29. The resident initially asked to raise a complaint on 13 December 2023 about damp, mould, and the heating system. Where a resident has not previously notified the landlord of a repair issue, it can be reasonable for it to handle a request for a complaint as a service request in the first instance. There is no evidence to show he reported the issues earlier and we are unable to determine if it failed to act. It acted reasonably by raising a complaint on 5 January 2024 at his request. It sent its stage 1 response within published timescales.
30. The resident outlined that his main concerns related to the heating system, damp and mould, and the impact on his son’s health on 21 June 2024. It should have proactively escalated the complaint at the time given his dissatisfaction. It did not do so until 14 July 2024 at his further request. It then took 42 working days to respond at stage 2 (11 September 2024). This was outside of its published timescale of 20 working days.
31. The landlord took 10 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint about guttering at stage 1 between 3 and 17 June 2024. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code. Following his request to escalate the complaint on 14 July 2024, it took 41 working days to respond. This was outside of its published timescales. It acted reasonably by recognising delays, that it had not processed the compensation offered at stage 1, and that it did not communicate effectively about the complaint.
32. The landlord’s responded to the resident’s further complaint regarding the roof within a reasonable timescale at both stages.
33. In line with the Code, the landlord must ensure that it addresses all complaint points. We have separately found failings regarding the adequacy of the landlord’s responses to the resident above. We have included a recommendation for the landlord to review the quality of its responses to establish points of learning in how it responds to concerns regarding medical and financial vulnerability.
34. We have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to its handling of the complaints. It acted reasonably by recognising delays in its complaint handling. Its overall offer of £400 toward the complaint handling delays is proportionate to put right the impact of the complaint handling delays on the resident.

Learning

35. The landlord would benefit from reviewing its handling of the resident’s complaints to identify points of learning in how it responds to concerns related to medical and financial vulnerability. We have included a recommendation on this basis. It may also benefit from reviewing our Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (January 2024) to inform any training it delivers for complaint handling staff.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not provide records for all repairs, and its repair records were difficult to follow. There was also evidence to show that it did not make an adequate record of work needed in advance of completing work which delayed the repair to the roof. The landlord referred to incorrect dates in its communication with us, indicating staff may also have difficulty accessing clear information. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.

Communication

37. The landlord recognised failings in its communication with the resident at various stages We have identified that it did not learn from failings as it continued to communicate poorly. It is important for landlords to make proactive and timely contact with residents to give updates or explain delays, even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.