We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202502718)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502718

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request for repairs to the boiler.

Background

  1. At the time of the events complained about the resident was an assured tenant for a 2-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord. The resident’s partner was a joint tenant for the property. She told the landlord her partner has a chronic lung condition which meant exposure to mould posed a serious risk to him and they both have mental health conditions. At the start of the events complained about the resident was pregnant, their newborn daughter resided at the property with them following her birth.
  2. On 29 December 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that the property had not been habitable when her tenancy had been scheduled to begin on 31 October 2024 due to a leak. She said damp and mould had returned since they moved in on 2 December 2024, which was a risk to the health of her partner and their newborn daughter, and there had been issues with heating the property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 January 2025. It said the resident had reported a breakdown of the boiler on 9 December 2024 which it repaired on 20 December 2024. It had attended on 2 occasions beforehand, but she did not provide access. It noted a damp and mould surveyor had attended on 2 January 2025 and it would monitor the recommended work until it was completed. It offered her £326 as compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 January 2025 saying mould was continuing to spread. She complained it had not taken her partner’s and newborn daughter’s health into account in its handling of the repairs. She later told it their personal belongings had been damaged by the damp and mould.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 April 2025. It said the resident had reported an intermittent issue with the boiler on 12 February 2025. It had scheduled repairs for 26 March 2025 though she had moved out of the property. It accepted it delayed carrying out the repairs from the first damp and mould survey on 2 January 2025 but had completed a further survey and mould washes to address the issues. It offered her a total of £893 in compensation, consisting of £300 for its handling of the damp and mould, £418 for its handling of repairs to the boiler and £175 for its complaint handling. It did not agree to reimburse her for the claimed damage to their personal belongings.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service to investigate. She and her household have since moved to a different property as part of the landlord’s managed move process. She told us she remains dissatisfied with its response to her complaint as its offer of compensation did not reflect the level of distress caused and the damage to their personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident told the landlord and this Service her partner’s lung condition meant that exposure to mould could be potentially life-threatening to him and his condition worsened during their tenancy at the property. She said the condition is hereditary so she was concerned the mould may have adversely affected their daughter’s health. She also said both her and her partner have PTSD which the landlord’s handling of the events complained about triggered.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her household’s health further, she should seek independent legal advice. Where there is evidence of a failing by the landlord, the Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation (DMC) procedure confirms it has responsibility to address and resolve reports of damp and mould for rented properties it owns.
  2. At the start of her tenancy  on 31 October 2024 the resident told the landlord the property was not in a lettable standard as there was damp and mould across several rooms and the kitchen and bathroom were unusable. It confirmed the following day it had raised repairs with its void team and it would reimburse her rent for any days she could not use the property.
  3. The landlord identified there had been a leak from the bathroom between the resident viewing the property and her tenancy starting which had caused a flood. It told the resident on 20 November 2024 the property had dried out following its repairs and it had removed all visible mould, which it said was primarily on the kitchen wall adjoining the bathroom. It recorded she could move into the property from 27 November 2024 and it would refund her £486.65 for the rent from 31 October 2024 to 26 November 2024. She and her partner moved into the property on 2 December 2024.
  4. On 27 December 2024 the resident reported the leak from the bathroom had returned and the floor and walls were damp. She also said mould was present in the bedrooms and kitchen of the property and it kept returning. The landlord inspected the pipework on the same day and recorded there was condensation present but no evidence of a leak. It told her it would raise an inspection for the damp and mould. It recorded there should be no delay in treating the mould due to the resident’s partner’s health conditions.
  5. On 29 December 2024 the resident complained that mould was present across all rooms of the property despite ventilating the property and cleaning away the mould. She said it had told her a surveyor would visit the next week and she did not consider it had taken account of her partner’s health in its response to this.
  6. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 2 January 2025. It found there was mould present in both bedrooms, the kitchen and living room which required a 3-part mould wash. It noted the resident’s partner had a chronic lung condition and they had a young child in the property. The survey noted the property was previously a long-term void and had been flooded, it did not comment further on the possible cause of the damp and mould.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 January 2025 noted the resident had raised the issue of damp and mould on 27 December 2024 and that it surveyed the property on 3 January 2025. It acknowledged the further work was outstanding and it had contacted the surveyor to get the works raised and would monitor this until completion. It apologised for the delay and offered her £150 for her time and trouble.
  8. Though the landlord said in its stage 1 response it had contacted the surveyor to follow-up the works there is no evidence it did this before its response. From the available records it did not contact the surveyor until 24 January 2025 when it asked the surveyor to raise the works and clarify which areas needed treatment.
  9. The landlord scheduled to complete the mould wash on 13 February 2025. The resident’s partner contacted it on 2 February 2025 and asked it to bring this forward due to the risks the mould posed to his health. He also said there was a leaking tap outside the property which he considered was contributing to the damp. The resident had originally reported a leak from the external tap on 16 December 2024, the landlord recorded it would be responsible for repairing this at it had originally supplied it to the property. It did not repair this until 5 June 2025, after the resident’s household had moved out, and there is no indication it assessed whether this was contributing to the damp and mould.
  10. The mould wash was carried out by the landlord on 13 February 2025 as it previously arranged, this was 42 calendar days after its inspection. Its DMC procedure says it will address any repairs identified in an inspection in line with its repairs policy and take account of customer vulnerabilities. Its repairs policy said it aims to complete appointed repairs within 28 calendar days if the customer has vulnerabilities. It exceeded this timescale and there is no evidence it prioritised the repair in light of the resident’s partner’s health condition and its delay in raising the works.
  11. The landlord recorded it completed the mould wash for all visible areas but said it could not access behind the fixed cupboards to see the extent of any mould there. On 14 February 2025 it spoke to the resident who reiterated her concerns about the impact of the mould on her partner’s health and reported he had been coughing up blood. It arranged for an urgent damp and mould inspection to take place based on the possible hazards to the resident’s household and to consider a temporary move. It discussed whether she wanted to be considered for a permanent move but recorded she wished to stay at the property following repairs.
  12. The second damp and mould survey took place on 17 February 2025. The landlord recorded:
    1. There was major damp on the wall adjoining the wet room and the kitchen which had caused mould growth on the kitchen backboards.
    2. The cause of the damp and mould was unknown but may be a residual issue from the major works during the void period. A repair was necessary to seal an open edge of the wet room flooring.
    3. It would discuss further with its housing team about if the resident’s household needed to be temporarily moved or rehoused. 
  13. On 20 February 2025 the landlord carried out further mould washes to the kitchen. It recorded the wet room had an incorrect tile trim which created a gap allowing water to enter the wall. It said it would recall the contractors to repair this. It visited the property again on 3 March 2025 and confirmed there had been no new mould growth in the areas it had treated. It noted the resident’s concerns about potential mould behind the kitchen cupboards and said it would discuss this with the surveyor. This was reasonable action for it to take in line with its DMC procedure to assess if it had resolved the mould and to keep her updated.
  14. The landlord said, as part of its stage 2 response, its surveyor visited the property again on 10 March 2025. It said it had successfully removed the mould previously seen though the resident was still concerned there may be mould behind the kitchen cabinets. It stated the surveyor arranged additional works to address this and to improve ventilation across the property by renewing trickle vents. We have not seen any evidence of the survey beyond its description of it in the stage 2 response, which is a records management failing.
  15. Though the survey on 17 February 2025 said it would discuss a temporary move we have not seen the landlord considered this further until 17 March 2025. On this date it completed an assessment recording intrusive works were necessary to remove the kitchen units and noted health vulnerabilities for the resident’s partner and their newborn daughter. It agreed on 18 March 2025 to arrange a temporary move, on an emergency basis due to their health vulnerabilities, and informed the resident the same day. Considering the health vulnerabilities she reported when the survey was requested on 14 February 2025 and it had agreed to look at a temporary move this was not a reasonable timescale for it to complete the assessment. Notwithstanding this, the action it took to treat the mould and assess the property during that time mitigate the impact of that failure to some degree.
  16. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 March 2025 to ask that it move her and her family permanently from the property due to the risk the damp and mould posed to her partner and daughter. She also said she had discovered several of their personal belongings they had stored in the bedroom such as carpets, bedding and clothes had been damaged by the damp and mould and she wanted it to reimburse her so she could replace these. She sent a list of the damaged items on 24 March 2025.
  17. The agreed temporary move began on 25 March 2025 so repairs could be carried out. The landlord responded to the resident’s request to be permanently moved on 28 March 2025 and agreed it would look for a property it could move her into permanently as a management move. This was in accordance with its displacement policy which says if a resident expresses a preference to move permanently it will consider this on a case-by-case basis.
  18. The landlord also agreed to extend the temporary move after the repairs to the property had been completed on 11 April 2025 until the property it had offered to the resident as a management move was ready. It was not required to do this in line with its displacement policy and went above what we would have expected it to do. As such, she and her household were not residing in the property from 25 March 2025, with the management move taking place around 11 May 2025.
  19. On 9 April 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In this it:
    1. Accepted there had been an administrative error which meant the works from the damp and mould survey on 2 January 2025 were not raised at the time and not completed until 13 February 2025. A further damp and mould survey had taken place with additional mould washes on 20 February 2025 and additional work recommended on 10 March 2025.
    2. Said it would not be offering reimbursement for the claimed damage to her personal belongings. There was no evidence of problems with damp and mould in the bedroom when she moved in. After she had reported damp and mould on 27 December 2024 it arranged a mould wash to the affected areas, including the bedroom wall, on 13 February 2025. There was no further work required in the bedroom to address damp and mould after this.  
    3. Offered the resident £300 as compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience from its handling of the damp and mould.
  20. In line with our guidance for remedies there were aggravating factors in how the impact of these events affected the resident, both in terms of concerns about how the damp and mould may affect her partner and their child’s health and how her mental health condition would have been aggravated by the distress.
  21. In light of this we consider the £300 offered was not fully proportionate to put things right. The delay in completing the mould wash following its survey on 2 January 2025 did not exceed the landlord’s timescales by so much it would normally be a significant failure. However, this would have had a greater impact on the resident due to the vulnerabilities of her household which it was aware of when she first reported damp and mould. There were additional delays in temporarily moving her household based on her concerns about her partner’s health following its later survey on 17 February 2025. We recognise once it temporarily moved the resident it took meaningful action to put things right by agreeing to move her household permanently and allowing them to remain housed away from the property until this was ready. This was a significant offer of remedy which we have considered when making our decision.
  22. In terms of reimbursement when a resident reports damage to their personal belongings was caused by damp and mould this Service would typically expect a landlord to consider providing a discretionary payment under its compensation policy for the damaged items or referring the matter to its liability insurer. It explained why it would not be making a discretionary offer in its stage 2 response.
  23. This Service is not in a position to take a view on whether or not the landlord is liable for the claimed damage to the resident’s personal belongings. In our view as it decided not to make a discretionary offer of compensation it should have given the resident details of its liability insurer if she wanted to challenge this. As it did not do so we have made an order for it to provide her with this information.  
  24. Overall, we find that the landlord’s offer of remedy to put things right did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident so we have made orders for it to address this.  

Repairs to the boiler

  1. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair handbook confirms it has responsibility for repairing heating and water heating equipment including boilers. The tenancy agreement also says the resident has responsibility to grant it access to the property to carry out repairs.
  2. The resident first raised a repair request for the boiler on 9 December 2024 saying there was no heating or hot water in the property. She had previously advised the landlord, as part of an unrelated repair request, she would be going into hospital for her pregnancy on 9 December 2024. It advised she would need to arrange for someone to be present to grant access if she or her partner was not available.
  3. The landlord attempted to carry out the boiler repair on 10 December 2024 and 16 December 2024 but was not granted access on either occasion. The resident’s partner complained on 18 December 2024 it had not fixed the heating, it told him someone needed to be present to grant access, but he refused to attend as “his baby is more important”. It explained a family member or friend could be present instead.
  4. The landlord completed the repair to the boiler on 20 December 2024. Its repair policy says that heating repairs during the winter season is an emergency repair which it will attend within 24 hours. It exceeded this timescale but there were mitigating factors for this as it was not able to access the property. Once it had discussed the requirement to grant access with the resident’s partner the repair was completed promptly.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 January 2025 outlined its attempts to fix the boiler and acknowledged the resident said that she had bought 2 temporary heaters as it did not offer this. It offered her £176 for this part of her complaint, consisting of £66 for the lack of heating and hot water and £110 for use of temporary heaters between 9 to 20 December 2024. This is consistent with its compensation guidance which says it will offer £3 per day for loss of heating, £3 per day for loss of hot water and £5 per day per temporary heater.
  6. The resident reported a further loss of heating and hot water on 12 February 2025. The landlord attended on the following day to attempt repairs, in accordance with its repairs policy.
  7. The landlord recorded the boiler required renewal and arranged further work to complete this. There are no records of communication with the resident to update her about the repairs and any action it would take to mitigate the impact on her.
  8. The landlord attended to renew the boiler on 13 March 2025, it recorded a further part was necessary to complete the repairs which it ordered on 14 March 2025. The repairs were not completed before the resident and her household moved out of the property into temporary accommodation on 25 March 2025.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 April 2025 it noted its previous handling of the repair in December 2024 and its previous stage 1 offer of compensation. It inspected the boiler on 13 February 2025 after her later repair request and understood the boiler was working but had an intermittent loss of service. It said works to renew the boiler would be completed whilst she was in temporary accommodation. It offered an additional £252 as compensation for the loss of heating and hot water between 12 February 2025 up until the temporary move began on 25 March 2025. In total it offered £418 for its handling of the repairs to the boiler.
  10. The landlord’s approach was a proportionate way to put things right in line with its compensation guidance. However, its calculation of the compensation was incorrect. There was a total of 41 calendar days between 12 February 2025 and 25 March 2025 meaning it should have offered £246 in line with its compensation guidance of £6 per day where there is a loss of heating and hot water. Its calculation also reduced the amount it had offered for the use of temporary heaters between 9 to 20 December 2024 to £100 from the £110 offered in its stage 1 response without explanation. The landlord gives the correct figure at other points in the stage 2 response so in our view this was a mistake rather than an attempt to amend its offer.
  11. As such the total the landlord should have offered in line with its compensation guidance was £422. This Service does not consider its errors in calculating the amount to have a significant enough impact to constitute a failing. Its offer of remedy was suitable to put things right, provided it updates this to correct its miscalculation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of repairs to the boiler satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 4 weeks of this determination:
    1. Issue the resident with a written apology recognising its failings as identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
    2. £400 (inclusive of the £300 it previously offered) for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould.
    3. Provide details to the resident of its liability insurer for the purpose of her claim for damaged personal belongings.
    4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident:
    1. The £422 it previously offered for its handling of repairs to the boiler (accounting for its previous error).
    2. The £175 it previously offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.