Sanctuary Housing Association (202450951)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450951

Sanctuary Housing Association

29 September 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 reports of damp and mould at her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident lives with her partner and 2 children. The landlord was aware the household was vulnerable at the time of the complaint.
The resident reported signs of damp and mould at her property in February and September 2024, and on 11 February 2025. In response the landlord undertook a damp and mould inspection and raised a mould wash and ventilation inspection.
On 10 March 2025 the resident raised a complaint. She said it was unfair that her rent and service charge increased annually whilst her landlord failed to address the damp she reported. She said her furniture had been damaged. On 26 March 2025 the landlord completed the mould wash and ventilation inspection. It ordered a cavity wall inspection for the north of her building.
On 1 April 2025 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld her complaint and said:
1. it had inspected and raised a repair order to complete a mould wash and ventilation by 18 March 2025. It had completed both on 26 March 2025.
2. the ventilation inspection found the loft in good condition with no insulation required.
3. because it completed works outside its target date, it offered the resident £100 compensation broken down into:
  1. £50 for her time and trouble.
  2. £50 for her inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said:
1. she was unhappy because washing the mould away did not address the cause of the damp.
2. the mould wash operatives on 26 March 2025 left her house in a “terrible condition”.
3. the compensation offer was not fair. Lots of her belongings were ruined including her daughter’s mattress.
In April 2025 the resident reported a reappearance of the damp. She also reported the issue to the local authority’s Environmental Health team who undertook a visit and asked the landlord to expedite repairs. On 23 May 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. it acknowledged that the resident had reported the issue over several years and it had failed to act previously.
2. since the stage 1 response, it had inspected the property again on 17 April 2025. The recommendations from this inspection were booked to take place on 1 July 2025. It was also waiting for the recommendations from a cavity wall inspection and was hoping to rectify all issues within 60 days.
3. it would have expected the resident to have moved some of the smaller items to a different location or cleaned them upon discovery of the damage. It acknowledged she couldn’t do this with larger items.
4. it apologised for not addressing all of her concerns at stage 1 and for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response.
5. it had fed back the failure to action her repairs to the relevant teams to prevent a similar failure in future.
6. it offered her £3,711 compensation broken down into:
  1. £3,200 for the damaged items.
  2. £400 for her time, trouble, inconvenience, future impact and poor record keeping.
  3. £36 for the 8-day loss of her daughter’s bedroom due to the mould.
  4. £75 for poor complaint handling.
The resident told the landlord she found the offer of compensation insulting. In September 2025 the resident told this Service that the landlord had allocated her a new property, and she was awaiting a move-in date. She said there was no damp or mould evident following the wash in July 2025 but that she suspects it will re-appear this Autumn as the landlord had not addressed the cause. To put the matter right she is seeking a revised offer of compensation, including a higher amount for her damaged items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from February 2024 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to 2024 are made in this report to provide context only.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard to be fit for human habitation.
The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed).
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure states that:
1. when damp is reported its customer service centre will first establish whether it is present, where possible it will establish the nature of the damp and provide advice to residents. Once this is done, a mould wash will be completed in line with its repairs policy.
2. where there is a second report a surveyor will inspect in accordance with the HHSRS. Any hazards identified will be addressed in line with its repairs policy.
3. it will keep the customer informed throughout repair steps.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 45 calendar days, with an enhanced service of within 28 days for residents with vulnerabilities. It aims to complete all major repairs within 90 days. It says some repairs require specialist parts or specialist contractors. In these instances, it must keep service users informed of the progress of their repair and provide an update of when the work will be completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can consider compensation for damage to loss of belongings due to its own action or inaction. It says any claims for damages in excess of £5,000 will be handled by its insurers. To calculate compensation for the loss of a room it says for each day that a bedroom is found unusable, residents can receive up to 20% of the proportion of rent, after 48 hours.
In February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord about several issues at her home, including dampness which she said was causing damage to her belongings. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this email, which was inappropriate when assessed against its repairs policy.
In September 2024 the resident again reported damp and mould. The landlord sent an autoreply advising that she would be contacted within 10 working days. It failed to follow this up, which was inappropriate.
On 11 February 2025 the resident reported damp and mould in her front room, bathroom, daughter’s bedroom and her living room. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and left a voicemail offering an inspection appointment for 17 February 2025. This was a reasonable response in line with its repairs policy.
On 18 February 2025 the landlord attended the property and found damp and mould. It is unclear if this one-day delay was due to the landlord or the resident changing the appointment. It rated the severity as ‘slight’. It raised a mould wash repair with a target date of 28 days. The following day the landlord raised an inspection of the ventilation in the loft. It was reasonable that the landlord inspected the issue and had a plan to repair the issue, with timescales. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then arranged appointment slots with the resident, which was a failing.
On 10 March 2025 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s inaction to her reports of damp, the damage to her belongings and the fact her rent and service charge continued to increase. On 18 March 2025 an Environmental Health officer wrote to the council advising that an urgent mould wash was required and that the daughter’s room was uninhabitable. It was not reasonable that the resident and Environmental Health had to contact the landlord to insist that it complete repairs.
On 18 March 2025, after contact from Environmental Health, the landlord offered the resident a mould wash on 28 March 2025. The resident explained that due to a surgery date she required an earlier repair appointment. In response the landlord agreed an appointment date of 26 March 2025. It was fair for the landlord to expedite the appointment to account for the resident’s vulnerability. However, the mould wash was already outside the target date of 18 March 2025, which was a failing.
On 24 March 2025 the resident told the landlord that she had slept for 6 nights on an air mattress on her lounge floor. She said she had been reporting mould as early as 2021. She said the landlord had still not inspected the roof and she outlined the financial and mental impact on her family. The landlord acknowledged the information, it said it was due to undertake repairs on 26 March 2025 and that it would consider all the information she provided in its complaint response. This was a fair and timely response.
On 26 March 2025 the landlord took steps to put things right for the resident. It:
1. undertook a mould wash in several rooms.
2. re-sealed several windows.
3. inspected the loft and found it to be in good condition and well ventilated.
4. raised a cavity inspection of the external wall at the north of the property.
The resident told this Service that she felt upset that the landlord had found the mould to be ‘slight’ only one month before Environmental Health inspected and took a different view. Though the landlord was entitled to rely on its operative’s findings, its failure to complete the follow-on mould wash in a timely fashion likely led to a worsening of the property condition and increased the resident’s frustration. This was not reasonable.
In the stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it delayed in completing the repair within agreed timescales and offered her £100 compensation. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged some of its failings.
However, the response failed to meaningfully engage with the resident’s distress over the loss of her daughter’s bedroom, the damage to her belongings, the longstanding nature of the repair or her frustration at having to pay the annual increase in her rent and service charges. This likely led to frustration for the resident, who escalated her complaint the following day.
In the stage 1 response the landlord failed to acknowledge the fact that a cavity wall inspection was outstanding. It was not until 14 April 2025, after the resident reported a reoccurrence of damp and mould, that it raised the repair on its system and booked an appointment with the resident for 16 April 2025. There is no clear reason for this delay, which was unreasonable. The landlord did not attend on this date, and the resident chased the repair, this was a failing.
On 17 April 2025 the landlord undertook a thorough inspection and recommended further repair works including moving a fence post that was against the wall of the property, reinstalling a damp course membrane with packers and clearing the gutters. The landlord was not proactive in communicating these findings to the resident who contacted it again on 21 April 2025. This was inappropriate when assessed against the damp, mould and condensation policy.
On 21 April 2025 the resident told the landlord that the operatives who washed the mould in March 2025 left the house a mess. She said she felt let down, she wanted an update on the repairs. The landlord said she would be contacted directly by the planning team with an appointment. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with a timeframe by which she would be contacted, as per its repairs policy.
It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the resident about the condition of her property following the mould wash, either as part of its complaint response, or to clarify whether she wanted to raise a separate complaint about employee conduct. That it did not was unreasonable.
The resident requested an update on 29 April and 7 May 2025. It was unreasonable that she had to chase repairs. On 8 May 2025 the landlord said it would provide a detailed response by 6 June 2025. The landlord also asked the resident for a detailed breakdown of the damaged belongings. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide an updated response time, but it would have likely reassured the resident and adhered to its own repairs policy if it had provided her with a repair appointment date. It was not until 14 May 2025 that the landlord agreed to an appointment for 1 July 2025 to complete repairs.
In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for failing to address the damp and mould when she had previously reported it. It also upheld that, as the final repairs remained outstanding, it had delayed in putting right the damp and mould reported in February 2025. It offered her £400 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience. It was reasonable that the landlord accepted responsibility for some of its failings and tried to put things right.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £3,200 for damage to her items. It said it would have expected her to move or clean some of the smaller items. It said it accepted that this was not true for all items and acknowledged that she did try to report the issue several times. The landlord explained that it had calculated this figure by reviewing the information and photographs she had provided, speaking with a surveyor, and using its discretion with a mind to like-for-like replacement. This Service has not seen evidence of any receipts sent by the resident, which was a record keeping oversight.
The resident told the landlord and this Service that she felt that the compensation offer for the items was “insultingly low”. We accept that because the resident did not have receipts for most of the items,it would be difficult to confirm their exact value.However, the landlord did not provide an item-by-item breakdown of how it calculated the final figure. Had it provided a transparent insightinto its calculations, it may have increased the trust between itself and the resident.
Given that the resident communicated that she felt the compensation offer for her damaged items was too low, it would also would have been in keeping with its compensation policy for the landlord to have provided the resident with details of its insurer. This is because the compensation policy states that any claims for damages in excess of £5,000 will be handled by its insurers. Had it provided details of its insurer, the resident may have had the opportunity to submit a claim for higher compensation, which may have put the issue right for her.
The landlord offered the resident £36 for the loss of her daughter’s room for 8 days between 18 and 26 March 2025. The compensation policy says that for each day a bedroom is found unusable, residents can receive up to 20% of the proportion of rent, after 48 hours. 20% of the resident’s rent for 6 days is £35.50. This was a reasonable offer of compensation for the loss of her daughter’s bedroom.
On 1 July 2025 the landlord completed final repairs to the property including moving a fence post that was against the wall of the property, reinstalling a damp course membrane with packers and clearing the gutters. The resident has confirmed there has been no re-appearance of damp and mould, though she remains concerned that it will return due to seasonal change. It was reasonable that the landlord adhered to the agreement to complete repairs as outlined in the stage 2 response.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property because:
1. whilst it attempted to rectify the damp and mould at several points, it failed to act in response to all of the resident’s reports of damp and mould for several years. This led to an overall 19-month delay in putting the issue right.
2. it did not action the first mould wash and inspection until after the involvement of Environmental Health.
3. there were delays in booking appointments with the resident and communicating outcomes of inspections.
4. it did not engage with her concerns about the state of her home after it had undertaken a mould wash and redecoration.
5. it did not provide details on the reason for its compensation figures.
In mitigation of these failures, the landlord has acknowledged some of these failings in its complaint responses and made attempts to put things right. It has also supported the resident to move property. It was also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle ‘to learn from outcomes’ that it fed back its poor record keeping and communication to its triage and repair teams.
However, it failed to address the detriment to the resident, and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The resident said she felt “fobbed off” by the landlord. She said it took years to make her house feel like a home, and that this was no longer the case.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £3,836 in compensation broken into:
1. £3,200 for damage to items.
2. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.
3. £36 for the loss of her daughter’s bedroom.
We have also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a detailed and transparent breakdown of how it came to the figure of £3,200 for damage to her items. If the resident is able to provide further details of the damaged items, it is encouraged to revise this figure if appropriate. The landlord must also provide the resident with details of its insurers, should she wish to make a claim about the damage to her items.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
It took the landlord 8 working days to acknowledge the initial complaint, which was a small delay. It delayed in issuing its stage 1 complaint response, but it communicated the need for an extension to the resident within the prescribed time frame, which was reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 response within appropriate timescales. It said it would provide its final response by 6 May 2025. The resident chased the landlord on 7 May 2025 for its response. That she had to do this was unreasonable. The landlord apologised and asked for an extension until 6 June 2025, though it provided its response before this, on 23 May 2025.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged minor delays at both stages. It also said it failed to address all points at stage 1. To put things right, it offered the resident £75 for its complaint handling failures, which was appropriate.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint. It did not respond to her frustration about having to pay the annual increase in her rent and service charge. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 6.7 of the Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord made a proportionate offer of compensation for the delays, but it did not appropriately acknowledge its failure to address the resident’s concern about her rent and service charge obligations. We have ordered the landlord to respond to the resident on this point. The landlord must also pay the resident the £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, if it has not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay compensation to the resident of £3,911 broken down as follows:
  1. £3,200 for damage to items.
  2. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
  3. £36 for the loss of her daughter’s bedroom.
  4. £75 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. the landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident. It can deduct the £3,711 previously offered in its complaint responses from the total compensation if it can evidence it has already paid this.
3. write to the resident and provide a copy of the communication to this Service. It must:
  1. apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. provide a detailed breakdown of how it calculated the final compensation for her damaged items. If the resident is able to provide further details of the damaged items, it is encouraged to revise this figure if appropriate.
  3. provide the resident with advice on making a claim with its insurers.
  4. respond to the resident regarding her concerns at having to pay an annual increase in rent and service charge.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to provide an update on the progress with the new property it has allocated her.