Sanctuary Housing Association (202441297)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441297

Sanctuary Housing Association

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident reports that she suffers from asthma, chronic back pain, fatigue, anxiety, and depression.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord repaired gutters on the resident house but found a leak from the unions in the roof. On 6 April 2022, the landlords repair notes show that there was a leak from the roof when it rained heavily. On 21 April 2022, the landlord’s repair notes show a leak from under the kitchen sink. On 30 May 2022, the landlord raised an order to replace the kitchen which had been damaged by an ongoing leak. On 8 September 2022, the landlord cancelled the works. On 6 June 2023, it surveyed the kitchen and again found that it required replacement. It found mould which it noted was a health and safety concern.
On 10 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. On the same day, the landlord had attended to replace the kitchen and found a slow leak behind the kitchen units causing damage to the cabinets and plaster work. The resident reported breathing difficulties as a result of damp in the kitchen. On 13 October 2023, the resident further complained that she had been reporting leaks for a long time. On the same day, the landlord’s repairs team reported that it had solved many leaks in the kitchen and bathroom but found a very serious leak to the roof which required urgent attention. It completed the kitchen replacement on 20 October 2023 and also reported that the bathroom required replacement.
On 6 July 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that following reports of damp in 2023 it provided a dehumidifier to dry out the walls for 7 days. It said the leak “presumed from the roof” had been remedied. It said it recently received reports of further leaks on 20 February 2023 following work in the bathroom and said it would survey the roof. It also said that it had approved a replacement bathroom. As a resolution to the complaint, it offered £153 compromising:
1. £75 for time, trouble, and inconvenience
2. £28 for energy reimbursement for dehumidifiers
3. £50 for delays in complaint handling
On 21 November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She reported that after the bathroom replacement 3 weeks previously, she found mould on the bathroom ceiling and her bedroom was covered in mould. She reported that the landlord had not resolved the roof leak. She reported that she has permanent lung damage after a previous surgery and was concerned about the effect mould could have on her health.
On 6 December 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged that it did not address all the issues raised by the resident. It acknowledged the delay in replacing the kitchen and completing bathroom works. It acknowledged a failure to follow up on repair works to the roof initially and then a further significant delay in completing the repairs. It raised an urgent repair order for the roof works as part of the complaint resolution. It further found that it had not taken any action on the recommendations of a damp survey. The landlord apologised for the service failures identified in its complaint investigation and as a resolution offered compensation of £2315, compromising:
1. £250 for poor complaint handling
2. £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused
3. £150 for future impact for repairs not completed
4. £1515 for loss of enjoyment
On 14 January 2025, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had to sleep on her sofa since mid-November because of the damp and mould in her bedroom. She said that the damp and mould was causing her distress as it could affect her and her daughters health conditions. As a resolution to the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding works.
On 18 February 2025, the resident sent the landlord images of property items damaged by mould and requested contact from the damp surveyor and the proposed works as a result of his survey.
On 21 February 2025, the landlord provided an updated stage 2 complaint response. It offered a further £150 compensation for items damaged by mould. It said that its surveyor recommended an upgrade to the heating system but that had not been approved. It would arrange an inspection to assess the efficiency of her heating system. It recognised that its communication with updates to the outstanding works had been poor and offered a further £75 for inconvenience and poor communication.

Events after the internal complaints process

On 22 May 2025, the landlord told the Ombudsman that it offered a further £200 for repairs delays. It confirmed that it would replace the heaters and carry out further repairs to the roof and rectify the bathroom and bedroom ceilings.
On 10 June 2025, the landlord completed a post repair inspection. The surveyor reported that the landlord needed to fill holes to eaves in the roof, remove back board to the kitchen base unit, treat the wall behind the unit, check lagging to the loft, and reported that the resident was told that the ceilings in the bedrooms and bathroom were going to be replaced.
On 17 July 2025, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that further pointing works were complete on the apex/verges of the roof. It said that no further works were outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns for the impact of the damp and mould on her and her daughters health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The complaint issues raised by the resident continued beyond the timeframe in which the landlord agreed to carry out the repairs, after its final complaint response. For completeness, and fairness, the Ombudsman has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s final complaint response because the evidence indicates that repairs remain outstanding.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 days. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged service failings in its response to the resident’s repair requests. The landlord identified that it had failed to respond appropriately to reports of a roof leak, kitchen replacement, and bathroom repairs. It apologised and offered compensation for its failings.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s response to reports of various repairs including a roof leak, damage to the kitchen, damage to the bathroom, and associated damp and mould. For clarity, this investigation has assessed each element separately.
Roof leak

In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it found on 26 July 2021 that further repair work to the roof and guttering was required. Its repair notes show that the landlord received another report of a roof leak on 6 April 2022 stating that a previous repair did not work. Its records are not clear but the landlord accepted that this was not followed up and no further work orders were raised until an urgent repair was raised on 16 October 2023. The landlord’s internal works team reported “a very serious leak to the roof at this address.” The landlord apologised for this service failing in its complaint response.
Once on notice of the major leak in the roof the landlord failed to take any action to address it despite evidence of several contacts from the resident through its complaint procedure and with its repairs team. On 5 February 2024, the resident reported an emergency repair because the roof leak was affecting the light in the kitchen. This was a significant failing of the landlord.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord surveyed the property and found a number of external defects. It made a number of recommendations including:
1. replacing guttering and downpipes.
1. repairing defective mortar.
2. it found condensation under the roof felt and rafters and recommended installing airbrick vents.
3. repairing a plumbing leak from the soil vent pipe.
The landlord failed to complete these works until recommendations until after the resident escalated her complaint 21 November 2024.
On 7 March 2025, the landlords repair notes noted that the eave felt was rotten, tiles were set too far back from the gutter, verge cement was crumbling, and insulation needed upgraded. The landlord confirmed that it completed these repairs on 29 May 2025. This was 19 months after the landlord was put on notice that there was a major leak to the roof. This was an unreasonable period of time and significantly beyond timeframes set in its own repairs policy. The evidence strongly indicates that the landlord’s failure to address the roof leak in a suitably timely manner caused damage to the kitchen and bathroom and subsequently the damp and mould persisted for a prolonged period because of this failure.

Kitchen

On 8 June 2022, the landlord inspected the kitchen and noted that units were badly damaged. It reported that “behind the units there is possible green mould, the tiles are cracked. White goods resting on concrete with rusty, mouldy chipped walls. There are cracks around some of the sockets.” It approved a kitchen replacement with a target date of 7 August 2022.
The landlord did not replace the kitchen until 14 months later on 20 October 2023. Its records are not clear why there was such a significant delay in replacing the kitchen units and there was no evidence of communication with the resident about the delay.

Bathroom

In October 2023, the landlord found issues with the bathroom. It surveyed the property on 27 December 2023 and recommended replacement bath, basin, replacing the wall tiles with aqua board, mould treatment, and repainting. This work was issued to a contractor with a target date of 31 March 2024. The repairs where then re-raised on 8 May 2024 and completed on 21 October 2024. This was almost 7 months after its initial target date.
Associated damp and mould

The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that require remedying.
The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place at the time of the resident’s initial complaint. However, it introduced a damp and mould policy in May 2024, before it issued its stage 1 complaint response. This policy states that it has a 4-step process to “identify, remedy, resolve and prevent” damp and mould. It says that if it is not the first time the resident has made a report of damp, a mould wash will be ordered and inspection arranged for a regional surveyor to visit the property in order to consider any hazards under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS).
On 19 December 2023, it surveyed the bathroom and found damp and mould in the bathroom due to the roof leak. The evidence shows that it treated the mould in the bathroom but failed to address the leak from the roof, which was the underlying cause of the damp and mould. This was inappropriate.
On 14 February 2024, the resident reported mould in 3 bedrooms and the bathroom. She said that although the mould was painted and treated recently it had returned. She reported that the leak was coming through the bathroom into the kitchen and affecting her light. She expressed frustration that she had reported this issue to repairs was being “fobbed off.”
On 5 March 2024, the landlord inspected the property and found external issues causing condensation, a leak from the soil stack. It found black mould in “various rooms to the first floor with the ground floor severe affected area. which confirms the presence of condensation forming on these surfaces.” In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to take action on receipt of the damp survey. This failure meant that it took no measures to address the damp and mould until January 2025, 11 months after the resident reported mould in the property. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The damp survey also found that while the heating was on in the property, internal room temperatures were in the region of 15-16 degrees. The surveyor recommended an upgrade of the heating system. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents. The landlord failed to investigate this issue for a further 12 months when it surveyed the heating and confirmed it would replace storage heaters.
The landlord’s delay in actioning the recommendations of the damp survey caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. When she escalated her complaint, she said that “I struggle most days with my health and having this ongoing complaint is not helping me, my home is not a home it’s just a house with mould, damp, insufficient heating to dry out the walls.” She further reported that she had been sleeping on her couch downstairs because of the mould in her bedroom which was affecting her health.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not demonstrate due consideration or regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act and possible adjustments to its service. This is despite clear knowledge of the residents health conditions and that they may make her particularly vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. No evidence has been seen that the landlord undertook a risk assessment or took proportionate and reasonable actions to minimise the potential risks to the resident and her wider household.
Measures such as dehumidifiers, checking ventilation fans, mould washes, mould paints, air filters, and even temporary accommodation had it found the property unsuitable considering the resident’s vulnerabilities, could have lessened the impacts of damp and mould. That the landlord took no action to address the clear finding of its own survey report highlighting damp and mould for 11 months was a significant failing and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and associated damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord complied with its HHSRS obligations to address the issue when it identified the hazard of damp, mould, and excess cold. It did not take sufficient or decisive actions to resolve the mould in the first instant or diagnose and resolve the damp for the resident. It demonstrated a lack of urgency to resolve the issue. The landlord’s failure had a significant impact on the resident who raised concerns for her health and the household. The evidence a lack of due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act. The landlord’s failings caused distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and loss of enjoyment of the home to the resident.
It is recognised that the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered redress. However, the offer of redress did not put things right and was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. The resident reported concerns for her health and particularly concern for the impact of damp on mould considering her vulnerabilities, which exacerbated the distress. Furthermore, the evidence strongly indicates that the landlord has not completed all works that it identified in its most recent survey of 10 June 2025. An order has been made below for it to do so.
This investigation found that the resident lost full enjoyment of her home for a significant period of time because of the landlord’s failures. She did not have full use of her kitchen and bathroom and reported sleeping on her couch because of black mould in her bedroom. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the heating system was inadequate. When calculating a figure for loss of enjoyment, it has been considered that the roof leak had been the main cause of the damp and mould across the wider property. Loss of enjoyment of the property has been calculated at approximately 30% of the resident’s rent for a period of 84 weeks. This is from 16 October 2023, when the landlord was put on notice that there was a serious roof leak, until 29 May 2025, when it repaired the roof. The total amount is £2650.
The Ombudsman further considers a payment for distress and inconvenience is appropriate. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and in recognition of the length of time that these adverse impacts have caused the resident, £1,000 has been awarded.
The resident went to significant time and trouble to report these issues to the landlord. The landlord apologised and offered £400 for this element of the complaint, which was reasonable in the Ombudsman’s opinion.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
It is not disputed that there were complaint handling failures. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the complaint at both stages of the complaint and apologised. It offered £250 for the delay in providing a complaint response, inconvenience, time and trouble, and lack of communication.
On 27 October 2023, the landlord requested a complaint extension until 9 November 2023 to carry out the investigation. It did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 36 weeks later on 6 July 2024. This had a significant impact on the resident. If the landlord brought the complaint through its complaint process within its timescales, the resident could have brought her complaint to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage. Then an order to comply with its repair obligations might have been made at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was comprehensive and detailed. It apologised and accepted failings in its response to the resident’s repair requests and acknowledged its complaint handling delay at stage 1. The evidence also shows that the landlord appropriately tracked the agreed actions after its stage 2 complaint response. It made an offer of £250 in compensation, specific to its complaint handling failures which was reasonable in the circumstances.
While it is acknowledged that the landlord accepted its failings in this case, it has not demonstrated what learnings it took from the landlord’s failings to reduce the likelihood of the same issues reoccurring. It could have carried out a case review to identify what went wrong and implement improvements to its complaint process if appropriate.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. While it appropriately identified and apologised for its complaint handling failures through its final complaint response and made an appropriate offer of redress, it has not demonstrated any learning to reduce the likelihood of the same issues reoccurring.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that a senior manager at director level or above apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
It is ordered for the landlord to contact the resident in the first instance to confirm if she has any outstanding repairs, in particular with regards to any outstanding actions found in its survey of 10 June 2025. It should set out an action plan with timescales of when the work will be completed. Furthermore, it should set a communication plan with the resident to ensure she is provided with regular updates.
It is ordered for the landlord to directly pay the resident compensation of £4300, compromising:
1. £2650 for loss of enjoyment of the property.
2. £1000 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £400 for time and trouble.
4. £250 for complaint handling failures
If the landlord has already paid the resident £2590 that it offered before the Ombudsman’s investigation, this should be deducted from the total.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must initiate and complete a strategic review of the learning from this case within 8 weeks of the date of this report. This must be carried out by a senior officer independent of the service areas involved. The review must seek to identify improvements and provide a timed implementation plan for these. It must include at minimum the following:
1. its practices in respect of the equalities act 2010.
2. a review of other complaints it has received about damp and mould to consider whether vulnerabilities are being recorded and acted upon correctly.
3. a review of its handling of the resident’s repair requests to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently.
4. a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint handling to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently.
The landlord should share the resultant report with its governance board and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £150 it offered for property damage in its further complaint response.