Sanctuary Housing Association (202451004)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202451004

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has been an assured tenant since 2021. She lives in the property with her partner and their two young children under the age of three. During the majority of these events from 2023 to 2024 she was pregnant with her youngest child.
  2. On 25 January 2023 the resident reported interior mould was causing damage to her personal belongings. Records showed the landlord’s damp specialist contractor attended once on 31 May 2023 but did not complete an inspection.
  3. On 7 October 2024 the resident raised the issue of interior mould with the landlord again, stating it was affecting walls and ceilings and damaging her personal items. The landlord arranged a damp inspection for 9 October 2024 but subsequently cancelled it, stating that no one was at home when its contractor visited.
  4. The resident chased this matter later in late October 2024 and the landlord re-arranged an appointment for 31 October 2024. The damp specialist completed the inspection this time and found mould in the living room and bedroom. They recommended a mould wash, which the landlord later completed on 2 January 2025.
  5. The resident complained on 2 December 2024 that the landlord had delayed in taking action on damp and mould since 2023. She described that the dampness was so serious it had lifted the floor boards in the hallway, she had to fit new skirting boards, and various furniture items including the sofa and carpet had been damaged. She also said she had followed the landlord’s advice on managing condensation and ventilation but the problem persisted. She reported she and her young children had been coughing for months.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2024 summarised as follows:
    1. The resident did not pursue repairs from March 2023 to October 2024 so the landlord was unaware of the damp and mould situation. It therefore could not bear any responsibility for the damp and mould development nor any damaged items. She should contact her own contents insurer.
    2. It had tried to attend for damp inspection several times but the resident was not at home so it could not gain access.
    3. It had scheduled in a mould treatment on 2 January 2025 which it acknowledged was delayed (as it was scheduled 18 days outside of its target 45-day timeframe for routine repairs). It apologised for this.
    4. It offered £25 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  7. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with this response, stating that she was never given an appointment for when the surveyor would attend so could not make herself available, and they did not leave a calling card.
  8. The complaints team informed the resident on 15 January 2025 that it had ‘reviewed’ her email but ‘the outcome remained unchanged’. The resident then requested formal escalation of the complaint.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2025. It largely repeated the explanations it had given during stage 1, but increased the compensation offer to £100, broken down as £75 for the delay in mould treatment and £25 for a delay in the complaint response at stage 2.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the compensation offer which she had not accepted. She explained that she, her partner and her children had been sick with respiratory symptoms and she had spent about £4,000 redecorating and replacing furniture items. She had not been able to make any insurance claim.
  11. She also explained to us the issues with the mould and swelling floorboards have recurred and she had been in touch with the landlord after stage 2 to request repairs, however the landlord had not carried out further inspections nor mould washes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation will focus on events starting from 25 January 2023 (when the resident first reported interior mould) to 7 March 2025 (when the landlord issued its stage 2 response).
  2. We acknowledge the resident had previously reported damp on external walls the landlord in February 2022. The nature of that report is substantially different to the reports of interior mould that came later. There was also a 11-month gap between the report of damp external walls and the report of interior mould in January 2023. These events may not be related and we would also normally expect residents to make a complaint within 12 months of a matter arising. We therefore will not look into how the landlord responded to the reports of external damp in February 2022.
  3. During the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it has focused on its responses to the interior mould starting from 7 October 2024 up to March 2025. It explained it would not make findings on earlier events from January 2023 up to 6 October 2024 as these events date back to more than 12 months from the point when the resident made her formal complaint.
  4. While this is a reasonable approach in line with the landlord’s own complaint handling procedure, and we would normally expect residents to pursue a complaint within 12 months of a matter arising, we have considered some extenuating circumstances. The resident was pregnant and caring for a newborn infant and a young child for a large part of the period from 2023 to 2024. We acknowledge there is no record to show she explicitly told the landlord about this at the time, nevertheless we would consider this was a valid explanation for her not being able to actively chase the landlord for repairs or pursue a formal complaint.
  5. We can also see the reports of interior mould from January 2023 are similar in nature to that reported on 7 October 2024 and likely to be directly related. Due to these reasons, we will consider these matters as a whole and include the landlord’s actions from January 2023 to October 2024 in our assessment.
  6. The resident has reported her concerns that the damp and mould was causing her and her family to experience respiratory symptoms. While we acknowledge she has said this was distressing for her, we are not in a position to determine whether the damp and mould directly caused these health impacts. That would be more suited to a personal injury claim. We can however consider if the landlord’s actions (or omissions) in response to her reports of damp and mould and her concerns over her and her family’s health condition caused her general distress and inconvenience.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs procedure states it would confirm all appointment times for all repairs where access to the property was needed.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would classify damp and mould as ‘appointed repairs’ which are non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required and it would agree an appointment with the resident during first contact wherever possible. It states it would aim to complete all appointed repairs within 45 days; if the resident had vulnerabilities it would provide an enhanced service of 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that, on receiving a first report of damp and mould, it would record ‘comprehensive information on the system’ about ‘the diagnosis and the reasons for it’. This document states that on a first report, having confirmed the presence of mould, it would arrange for a mould wash to be completed; on a second report, it would arrange another mould wash and raise an inspection for a surveyor to visit the property. It also states it would contact residents 3 months after completion of damp and mould repairs to ensure it had been eradicated.
  4. The tenancy agreement advises the tenant to take out contents insurance, which is repeated in the tenancy handbook.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has only two stages in the formal complaints procedure in line with our Complaints Handling Code. It also states it would decline to escalate to stage 2 ‘where it is clear that there is more that can be offered at part of the stage 1 response as new information has been provided’ but if the complainant remained unhappy afterwards it would escalate.
  6. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it would evaluate payments based on how much effort the complainant had used to pursue the complaint and how much impact the failings had on them. Where the complainant had gone to a high level of effort but experienced a low level of impact it may make an offer in the range of £51 to £150 and where both the effort and impact had been high, it may offer up to £400.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. For the majority of the repairs appointments made from January 2023 to October 2024, there are no records to show that the landlord had informed the resident of appointments ahead of time, nor that it had left calling cards after an unsuccessful visit. The resident’s account is that she did not know when the landlord would visit or had visited, and she kept waiting for the landlord to take action without knowing when she should chase again.
  2. In line with the landlord’s own repairs procedure, it should have given the resident reasonable notice of appointments so she could make herself available to grant contractors access to her home. In the absence of communication records to show the landlord did give reasonable notice, we consider the landlord had failed to show it acted in line with its repairs policy and procedure on multiple occasions.
  3. The resident explicitly raised this issue when she asked to escalate her complaint but the landlord did not respond to this at stage 2. It merely repeated what it said at stage 1 – that it was not able to gain access to the resident’s home and that was the sole reason for the delay in taking any action against the damp and mould. This gives the impression that the landlord was shifting blame onto the resident; it did not scrutinise its own records and actions to find out where things had really gone wrong.
  4. We can see that the resident did not chase for repairs from January 2023 to October 2024 for which she bears some responsibility, however this does not take away from the fact that there was no evidence to support the landlord had communicated with her to a reasonable degree to progress the damp inspection.
  5. The landlord’s internal records from January to July 2023 showed that it had chased the contractor multiple times for an update on the initial damp inspection. The contractor responded only on 6 July 2023 (more than 5 months later) that it was unable to complete the damp inspection due to no access. This showed a disconnection in communication between the landlord and the contractor, for which the landlord is ultimately responsible as it has a duty to monitor the contractor’s performance and ensure the resident receives timely repairs.
  6. There is also an inconsistency with the landlord’s explanations. In its stage 1 response it stated it had tried to attend as early as 30 March 2023 but the resident was not at home. The landlord’s own internal records however showed an invoice from the contractor which charged the landlord for an ‘abortive visit’, along with the statement that the contractor had attended, the resident was at home but advised ‘repairs had already been carried out’. This was contradictory to the landlord’s later explanations and showed a lack of reliability in its records.
  7. There is also no evidence that the landlord had taken the resident and the children’s vulnerabilities into account. She had reported respiratory symptoms for herself, her partner and two young children which she suspected was due to the damp and mould issues. In light of this information, the landlord should have been acted sooner in conducting a more thorough inspection to diagnose the causes of damp and mould. It could potentially have arranged for a repeat survey to help with information gathering and formulating an action plan. Not doing so was a missed opportunity to resolve the issues at their root cause.
  8. According to the landlord’s own damp and mould policy, it should have been able to confirm the presence of mould through the resident’s initial report (through photographs) and arranged a mould wash within 45 days. It should then have contacted the resident within 3 months afterwards to check if the situation had been resolved. In this case, there was significant delay in diagnosing the presence of mould, arranging a mould wash or damp inspection. There was also no record that the landlord had followed up further with the resident.
  9. The landlord offered £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by a delay in arranging a mould wash after the damp inspection in October 2024. The mould wash was done in January 2025. While this goes some way towards mitigating the impact of distress and worry experienced by the resident, we consider it did not go far enough due to the duration and severity of the delays from January 2023 to March 2025 as the mould issues remained not fully resolved for that time.
  10. The resident has explained to us that at present, the mould has recurred and the damp issues are persisting. We will therefore make an order for the landlord to conduct a new damp and mould specialist survey.
  11. Due to the reasons set out above, there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord has acknowledged a delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response. It had previously told the resident it would need an extension to provide this and the delay was about two weeks. This is of relatively short duration and the landlord’s offer of £25 was in our view sufficient to reflect any inconvenience caused by this delay.
  2. However we identified another issue. After the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and said she was not happy with the compensation offer, the landlord did not escalate her complaint immediately. It conducted a ‘review’ of her communication and then told her it would not change the outcome. It also told her that while she could request an escalation to stage 2, this would likely not change the outcome in any way.
  3. The informal ‘review’ is essentially an additional stage to the formal 2-stage complaints process which is set out in our Complaints Handling Code. This has the effect of causing a barrier or a delay in the resident coming to our Service for an independent investigation. It is also inappropriate for the landlord’s complaints team to state to the resident that escalation would likely not change the outcome, as this gives the impression of a pre-determined biased outcome and also unfairly discourages the resident from pursuing her complaint further.
  4. We have examined the landlord’s complaints procedure. This document states the landlord would decline escalations where ‘new information has been provided’ and it could offer more explanation at stage 1. We do not consider this is a valid reason to postpone or decline any requests to escalation, as the landlord would have the opportunity at stage 2 to look into any information it did not previously consider.
  5. In this case, we also cannot see that the resident provided any new information after stage 1 other than stating she had not received notice of appointments, which the landlord should have considered at stage 1. Even when the complaint progressed to stage 2 the landlord did not respond to this issue.
  6. We consider the inappropriateness of language from the complaints team and the delay in escalation from 19 December 2024 to 15 January 2025 has caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  7. Due to these reasons, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Provide information on how she could make a claim with its liability insurer for her damaged items.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident a sum of £700 (inclusive of £100 previously offered), broken down as follows:
    1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and lack of notice in handling the damp and mould.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by failure to escalate the resident’s complaint appropriately.
  3. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to carry out a damp and mould survey by a qualified surveyor to evaluate the current situation taking into account any potential vulnerabilities including respiratory symptoms of the resident and her family. It must then write to the resident to share the survey findings and set out an action plan with timescales to resolve the situation. It should provide a copy of the survey report and letter to the Ombudsman.
  4. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to carry out a review into its complaints policy and procedure and evaluate this against the standards set out in our Complaints Handling Code. It must write to us with its findings and share with us what actions it intends to take to ensure its complaints policy comply with the Complaints Handling Code.