Sanctuary Housing Association (202500351)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500351

Sanctuary Housing Association

23 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 October 2024. The property is a 4-bedroom bungalow. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children. The landlord has informed us that the resident reported her children have a number of health conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, Tourette’s syndrome and severe asthma.
On 7 October 2024 the resident reported a patch of mould on the wall in the kitchen. The landlord visited on the same day and completed a mould wash. On 16 December 2024 the resident reported rising damp and mould on the walls in her daughter’s bedroom and in the living room. The landlord attended on 20 December 2024 and completed a mould wash, unblocked the gutters, and reported further work was needed to external concrete around the property. It also noted a supervisor’s inspection was needed as the resident had reported her children were having breathing issues.
On 30 December 2024 the resident complained that the landlord had not resolved the issue. She reported her children were severely asthmatic, and her daughter had been sleeping on the sofa due to the mould in her bedroom. She raised concerns about the drainage around the property. To resolve matters, the resident asked the landlord to arrange for a supervisor and surveyor to attend and for works to prevent the damp and mould to be completed.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord’s roofing contractor attended. The landlord’s supervisor attended on 8 January 2025 to assess what work was needed. The roofing contractor reattended on 9 January 2025 to install a new downpipe following concerns from the resident that it had not inspected the property thoroughly on its first visit.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2025. It noted that following its attendance in December 2024 work to the gutters, brickwork and the downpipe was needed to improve the condition of the property and prevent further problems. The landlord said it was waiting for a full scope of work. It confirmed that once it had received this it would be in touch to schedule further work. The landlord also apologised for the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused the resident and for any delays or miscommunication she felt there had been.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 January 2025. She reported the landlord had delayed authorising repairs, and she raised further concerns about the drainage around the property and reported that the roof had been installed incorrectly. The resident noted that 2 of her children had been treated for chronic asthma, and her son was on antibiotics. It is unclear whether the resident reported that this was in relation to the damp and mould. On 18 February 2025 the resident raised further concerns that the works the landlord had proposed would not resolve the issue. To resolve matters, the resident asked for a structural surveyor to attend and give a second opinion on what works were needed.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response letter on 25 February 2025. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns about the work it had proposed and confirmed it had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 27 February 2025 to complete a report on the damp and any necessary repairs. The landlord apologised for delays to the repairs and offered the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused.
Following the stage 2 response, a surveyor attended on 27 February 2025. The surveyor considered the issue was the result of the rainwater gutter discharging onto a concrete fitted access ramp to the property. The landlord’s surveyor requested a drainage contractor attend and provide a quote for works to fit a French drain to channel water into a communal drain. The surveyor also arranged for a plumber to inspect a potential leak from a newly fitted water closet.
In March 2025 a contractor attended and provided a quote for the external drainage and concrete works and for works to the bathroom and water closet, which the landlord accepted. In April 2025 the landlord completed investigations into the potential leak in the water closet, with no leak found. From June 2025 onwards the landlord has carried out significant work to the property, which continues to date. Additionally, the resident has recently told us that damp and mould is still present in the property. She has provided photos to support this.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to works completed following the stage 2 complaint response. In the interest of fairness, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s handling of this work. This is because the landlord needs the opportunity to respond to any dissatisfaction before our involvement. The resident can complain directly to the landlord about repairs carried out after the stage 2 complaint response, if necessary.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s response to the issues raised and addressed in the resident’s complaint and escalation, in December 2024 and January 2025, including any further action agreed by the landlord in its complaint responses.
The resident has reported concerns about the potential impact the presence of damp and mould had on her family’s health. While we recognise the resident’s concerns, unlike a court, we cannot establish the causes of a reported health issue. This would likely be better suited to consideration by a court or through a personal injury claim. However, we will consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the impact on her family’s health, and whether it has demonstrated that it factored these reports into account in its overall handling of the damp and mould issue.

Assessment

Having carefully considered this case, we have found there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The reasons for this are set out below.

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

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks damp and mould can pose, particularly to children with health conditions like asthma. It’s therefore understandable the resident was concerned by damp and mould in the property. However, the presence of damp and mould in the property does not automatically amount to a failure by the landlord. What’s relevant is whether the landlord acted promptly in response to the resident’s concerns, carried out remedial works it was responsible for, and followed its own policies and procedures.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, makes a number of recommendations, including that landlords should ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it has a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, with a 4-step process to; identify, remedy, resolve and prevent damp and mould. The landlord says when contacted by a resident about damp and mould it will:
1. Work with the resident to diagnose the problem at an early stage.
2. Tailor its approach based on its understandings of a resident’s needs.
3. Make sure its teams have the knowledge and skills to resolve the issue effectively.
4. Work with the resident to quickly remedy any situation where it has not got things right.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not set out specific timeframes for when it will attend a property following a report of damp and mould. However, the landlord’s repair policy says it will carry out non-emergency works within 28-days.
In this case, the resident reported damp and mould on a few occasions, and she raised concerns about the impact the damp and mould reportedly had on her and her family’s health. In relation to resolving the damp and mould itself, the evidence shows that, on the whole, the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns and took appropriate action to try to resolve the problem. However, while the landlord’s response to the repairs issues was largely reasonable, we have some concerns about its handling of the resident’s reports about how the condition of the property impacted her and her family.
When the resident first reported mould in the kitchen in October 2024 the landlord attended on the same day and completed a mould wash. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and shows it acted with a sense of urgency. This is in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy and the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report, mentioned above.
We have considered whether the landlord missed an opportunity to diagnose the source of the mould in October 2024. When considering reports of damp and mould, we expect landlords’ responses to be reasonable and proportionate to the issues reported.
In this case, it seems in October 2024 the issue appeared to be isolated to the corner of the kitchen, and there is no evidence of reports of rising damp or mould in other parts of the property at that time. There is also no evidence from October 2024 that suggested completing a mould wash would not resolve the issue. Taking this into account, we are satisfied that at the time the landlord’s actions were reasonable and proportionate.
Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the living room and in her daughter’s bedroom in December 2024 the landlord attended 4 days later to complete a mould wash of these areas and clear the gutters. In addition to completing these short-term repairs, the landlord also identified that more significant work was needed to resolve the issue. This included works to the concrete around the property. This further shows the landlord recognised the need to act in a timely manner. Its actions were in keeping with its damp and mould and repair policy.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint because she wanted a supervisor and surveyor to attend and for works to be completed as soon as possible. The landlord’s supervisor completed a visit on 8 January 2025 and identified several repairs needed to resolve the issue. This was in keeping with the landlord’s repair and damp and mould policies.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 because she disagreed with the landlord’s proposed work and because she felt the landlord had caused delays. She asked for a surveyor to attend and give a second opinion on what work was needed. In response, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend in February 2025. Following this, the landlord agreed to carry out works based on its surveyor’s recommendations. This is commendable and shows a willingness to work with the resident to resolve the issue.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord has said it paid the resident £150 compensation in February 2025, and the resident has not disputed this. It completed work to the guttering and brick work in early March 2025. In late March 2025 the landlord obtained a quote for external work to the drainage and concrete around the property. And in April 2025 the landlord completed its investigations into the possible leak inside the property. By June 2025 the landlord had started the external work in line with the quote sourced by its surveyor. This demonstrates that the landlord completed the actions promised in its stage 2 response letter.
We recognise the actions the landlord agreed in its stage 2 response did not resolve the issue. Instead, the landlord has had to complete further work, beyond what was agreed in its stage 2 response. And we understand this work continued until at least September 2025. We also recognise that damp and mould issues are complex, and in some cases, it is necessary for landlords to complete a number of repairs to eliminate possible causes of damp and mould. Taking this into account, we do not think the actions the landlord agreed, to resolve the damp and mould itself, in its stage 2 response were unfair or unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has recognised some failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
For instance, it appears there was some miscommunication about the work required when roofing contractors attended on 7 January 2025. This resulted in the resident raising concerns with the landlord and the contractors having to reattend on 9 January 2025 to fit a new downpipe.
Additionally, in its stage 2 response the landlord has accepted there were delays. It seems this happened because of some confusion as to whether the landlord’s repair contractor needed authorisation from the landlord to begin repairs. In any case, the landlord has accepted there was a delay and has paid the resident £150 compensation in recognition of this. This demonstrates a willingness to put things right when there have been mistakes, and the amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
However, we have identified a failure in the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould which the landlord has not recognised in its responses to the resident’s complaint.
In the landlord’s records of the resident’s complaint and escalation, the resident reported concerns about the impact the issue had on her and her family’s health. She reported that 2 of her children had severe asthma, that her daughter had been sleeping on the sofa because of the mould in her bedroom, and the resident was concerned she and her son would be hospitalised.
The records also suggest the resident reported that 2 of her children were under the care of a children’s hospital for chronic asthma. And she reported that her son was on antibiotics. Although, it is unclear whether the resident reported this was related to the damp and mould.
Overall, it’s clear the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the reported impact of the damp and mould on her and her family’s health in December 2024 and January 2025. As mentioned earlier in this report, it is not for this Service to establish the causes of a reported health issue. It is also not our role to determine whether a property is habitable.
However, the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure properties are fit for human habitation and free from hazards at the beginning of, and throughout, a tenancy. And as our investigation process is evidence based, we would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it has considered the resident’s concerns about the reported impact of the damp and mould on her and her family’s health.
We recognise in the summary document the landlord has provided to this Service as part of the investigation process it has said it took action to minimise the impact of any works on the resident and her family’s health and wellbeing. However, it is not clear from the evidence what these actions were. Nor is there evidence of its responses to the specific concerns that the resident raised at the time.
We appreciate that before the reports of damp and mould the landlord moved the resident to the property following issues at her previous address, and we recognise the landlord clearly struggled to find a suitable property. We also understand it is often difficult for landlords to source suitable alternative accommodation, whether temporary or permanent. Nevertheless, it is essential that landlords ensure residents and their personal circumstances are put at the centre of their decision making.
We note the landlord has confirmed it did not carry out an Equality Impact Assessment as its procedure at the time did not require it to do so. Nor did it carry out a risk assessment for the resident in this case. This is concerning, given the resident’s reports of the health conditions her children have. The landlord must satisfy itself and this Service that it considered whether it was appropriate for the resident and her family to remain in the property while it took action to resolve the damp and mould issue. It has not done this.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has not demonstrated that it sufficiently considered the resident’s concerns about the reported impact the damp and mould had on her and her children’s health. This is a failure by the landlord in its overall response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
Additionally, The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition. We note the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the reported health related impact of the damp and mould in its responses to the resident’s complaint. This was not reasonable, as the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns.
Taking the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. To resolve this complaint, we have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £300compensation for any distress experienced as a result of the failures that have been identified here. This amount is inclusive of the £150 it has already offered the resident.
This is to ensure the distress the resident has experienced as a result of the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it considered the resident’s health related concerns is recognised in the overall compensation offer. This is in line with our remedies guidance, available on our website, which says when there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, payments between £100 to £600 are appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation, inclusive of the £150 agreed in the stage 2 response, for the distress experienced by the resident.
Any amount of compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid directly to the resident. The landlord is to ensure that evidence of compliance with this order is provided to us within 4 weeks.