Sanctuary Housing Association (202503823)

Decision
Case ID	202503823
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident moved into the property in January 2024. The resident has a respiratory condition, they are disabled, they also have other mental health vulnerabilities, and their memory is affected. They told the landlord about damp and mould issues they were experiencing from February 2024. They subsequently complained about this, as well as their requests for aids and adaptation works.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Concerns about aids and adaptation works.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about aids and adaptation works.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

It was encouraging the landlord committed to undertaking repairs as a preventative measure to resolve any damp and mould concerns the resident had. While it provided remedies to put things right and attempted to demonstrate it learnt from outcomes from its own investigation, these were not proportionate to the events. At the outset there was a lack of consideration towards the resident’s vulnerabilities and no risk assessment conducted. The resident also experienced further distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s communication errors.

Concerns about aids and adaptation work

The landlord did not follow its aids and adaptations policy and miscommunicated with the resident. While it was reliant on further information to assess whether it was a minor or major adaptation, it could have taken action sooner than it did.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident’s initial stage 2 escalation request was missed by the landlord, and it had not identified this failure during its own investigation. Therefore, it had not followed its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £950 in compensation made up as follows: £650 (inclusive of the £500 previously offered) for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould. £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about aids and adaptation works. £50 for the time and trouble expended by the resident due to its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the requirements for further ventilation and condition of internal doors, and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of any presence of damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 23 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss and consider any reasonable adjustments in communicating with them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 December 2024	The resident submitted their complaint to the landlord. They said that: Damp and mould issues first reported on 5 February 2024 remained unresolved and no treatment had been completed. It was not following its damp and mould policy, and mould was affecting internal doors, the kitchen area and personal possessions. Notice was not provided for a damp and mould appointment on 21 October 2024, and it incorrectly marked it as a missed appointment. The next repairs appointment was booked for February 2025 which they believed was too large of a gap from October 2024. Their and their pet’s health and wellbeing had been affected, by its inaction to address the mould. They had been without a mattress since April 2024 due to it going mouldy and could not pay the local council’s charge of £35 to remove large items from their property. They had not fully unpacked and continued to pay towards a storage facility at £170 every 4 weeks. They had purchased a dehumidifier and used it continuously. They also believed it had failed to consider their bathroom aids and adaptations request.
7 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. it said: It attended the property on 20 February 2024. It found no repairs were required but it advised the resident about how to heat the property. A further inspection was raised on 31 July 2024 and attended on 15 August 2024. Repairs were raised to install a vent to the cupboard door, replace the bathroom door and install vents in the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and lounge. It apologised it failed to tell them about the above repairs that were to be undertaken on 21 October 2024, but it re-arranged these for 11 February 2025. It had received their doctor’s letter and would compensate them for their mattress but not any moveable items. It signposted them to their contents insurance. The first report about bathroom aids and adaptions was received on 13 August 2024 and its policy timeframe for this request was 1 year. It awarded £500 in compensation (£250 for the mattress, £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, £50 for delayed repairs).
3 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord for their complaint to be escalated. They remained dissatisfied because: They had followed its advice from 20 February 2024 about keeping the temperature of the property higher. The property was “visibly unclean” when they moved in and they believed the landlord knew they were disabled and had a respiratory condition. The only repair completed (at that stage) was the replacement bathroom fan. They believed communication issues persisted. They were told they would receive written confirmation about appointments but this had not happened. They disputed its position about moveable items and not being given compensation for these. As a result of buying a dehumidifier, they were trying to cut additional costs by not using all the lights in the property. Their pet was undergoing vet appointments of substantial cost, and their pet insurance premiums could increase if they made a claim. There had been a lack of action on bathroom aids and adaptations.
Between 24 March 2025 and 28 March 2025	On 24 March 2025 the resident called the landlord as they had not received a stage 2 response. It then acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 28 March 2025.
22 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident and said: During its February 2024 inspection the mould behind the toilet system was due to condensation. It reiterated it had advised how to control this. It re-attached advice on how to manage condensation. No mould was found in its inspection in August 2025 but it had agreed to repairs as a preventative measure. The bathroom fan replacement was completed on 14 January 2025 and besides the bathroom door, all other repairs were completed on 11 March 2025. It said the bathroom door did not require replacement and apologised for delays. Reiterated it had up to a year to complete aids and adaptation works. No disabilities or vulnerabilities were recorded on their tenancy application, and the property was in good condition at handover. They had not provided any evidence that items had been damaged, and its surveyors had not recorded any damage, but it would still honour the £250 compensation towards a mattress and re-offered the total £500 from stage 1. It had identified learning from the complaint and the importance of keeping its residents informed about the status of repairs.
Referral to the Ombudsman	By 27 May 2025 the resident referred their complaint to us. They remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted increased level of compensation and for all works to be completed. In July 2025 the resident told us the landlord had completed the aids and adaptations work. In November 2025 they told us the initial surveyor had recommended air brick ventilation which had not been installed.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This is echoed in the resident’s tenancy agreement which says the landlord is responsible for internal walls and doors too, but not internal decorations.
The landlord also has responsibilities under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and therefore the landlord is required to consider this and if it requires remedying.
During the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident raised the condition of the property on handover. The landlord’s position was that there were no issues with the property when the resident moved in and accepted it. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The landlord attended to the first report of damp and mould (5 February 2024) made by the resident. This was inside the landlord’s target time of 28 days, as set out within its repairs and maintenance procedure. The landlord’s records from its attendance showed it considered the resident was vulnerable. While it gave them a guidebook and advice, it left a vulnerable resident with mould behind the toilet to treat themselves. There is no evidence the landlord considered using discretion under its repair procedures or offered any other support. This was unreasonable given it knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and it caused them distress and inconvenience.
The next report of damp and mould made by the resident was on 31 July 2024. The landlord also attended to this inside target timescale. The surveyor found no mould in the property as the resident had treated it themselves. Despite this, the landlord wanted to undertake repairs as a preventative measure. This was positive and showed it was going above its obligations. It had arranged repairs for 21 October 2024. However, this appointment was not communicated with the resident. As it approved the work on 11 October 2024, it should have completed these by 8 November 2024.
The resident called the landlord on 14 January 2025 as they thought all vents were being installed on this date. An appointment that was booked for 11 February 2025 was re-arranged for 27 February 2025. The resident called it on the morning of 27 February 2025 to check on the status of repairs. They called again at 5.19pm as no one had attended. The landlord then called them back and re-booked the appointment for 11 March 2025.
Ultimately the repairs the landlord committed to were not completed until 11 March 2025 (123 days over target). The resident experienced distress, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble expended due to the delays. The landlord also missed escalations of risks to the resident, and they involved their support worker. We can also see on 7 January 2025 the landlord received the doctor’s letter which stated the resident’s circumstances. Yet there is no evidence the landlord conducted a risk assessment in this period.
The resident said they experienced damaged possessions, paid towards expensive veterinary costs, and they do not want a price rise in pet insurance premiums. It would be fairer and more effective for the resident to make an insurance claim or pursue this matter via the courts. We have not investigated this further. As the resident remains dissatisfied about these issues and believes the landlord is liable, we have recommended it provides them with details of its liability insurance.
The landlord did however signpost the resident to claim via their own insurance policy for damages and offered £250 in discretionary compensation towards their mattress. This was a proactive resolution at that stage and showed willingness to use discretion under its compensation guidance.
The landlord failed to set out its position on the resident’s request for written confirmation of appointments. It is clear they were distressed by missed appointments and a lack of proactive communication by the landlord. The landlord operates a vulnerable customer procedure and says it will reasonably tailor its services based on the specific needs and concerns of. Therefore, it should have confirmed whether it would consider their request, given their vulnerabilities.
In the landlord’s final response, it apportioned £250 (of the £500 total) towards the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, it did not acknowledge all the above failings identified in this report. Had it not been for its attempts to put things right and learnt from outcomes, we would have considered maladministration. We have considered the extent of the mould found by the landlord was limited to behind the toilet, but it could have done more to mitigate the detriment to the resident. To fully reflect the failures above, we have ordered a further £150 in compensation in line with our remedies guidance.
Additionally, the resident disputes the landlord’s position that works were completed in its final response. The resident says air brick ventilation and all internal door replacements were outstanding. We have not seen evidence that the landlord guaranteed to do this but acknowledge it was a recommendation by one of its own surveyors. We have not assessed any actions or inactions after the landlord’s final response. However, as this issue remains in dispute between the parties stemming from their initial complaint, we have made a new independent inspection order.

Complaint	Concerns about aids and adaption works
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy and procedure say minor adaptations (which cost less than £750) will be funded internally. It aims to complete these within 28 working days of the request.
Major adaptations (costing over £750) are generally funded through the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) via the local council. Upon receipt of the request, the landlord would assess whether the adaptation is major or minor.
The evidence showed the landlord was put on notice by the Occupational Therapist (OT) that the resident wanted adaptations, it still it had to assess whether it was major or minor adaptation. After the OT’s contact on 11 September 2024, the landlord wanted the OT to provide further information on 29 November 2024, which was reasonable at that stage.
On 31 December 2024 the landlord chased the resident’s OT for a response about the aids and adaptations required in the bathroom. The landlord did not receive a response from the OT until 2 January 2025. The evidence showed that after this OT response, the landlord considered the request to be a minor adaptation. Evidence also showed the landlord had all the information required on this date. We acknowledge the adaptations were completed on 13 June 2025. While we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter beyond its final response, the minor adaptations should have been completed by 11 February 2025 (28 working day target from 2 January 2025).
Considering the above, the landlord’s position in its final response that it had up until August 2025 to approve these works were unreasonable. The landlord demonstrated a lack of urgency despite knowing the resident was vulnerable and having enough information to assess whether the adaptations were minor or major in January 2025.
We have also noted that the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, and procedure, does not specify a 12-month approval period for minor adaptations. In any event, it had the opportunity to provide clear communication to the resident. By it not doing so, it caused them time, trouble, and inconvenience. We have awarded £250 in compensation due to the resident’s experience, in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge both complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. At stage 1 it provided the acknowledgement and formal response within the timescales set out within its policy.
In contrast, the resident tried to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 March 2025. They had to chase the landlord, expending time and trouble as they had not received an acknowledgement or response. The landlord was 14 days over target in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. Its subsequent stage 2 response was within target timeframes from acknowledgement, but the resident’s complaint journey was delayed. This was inappropriate and not acknowledged by the landlord in its final response. We have ordered £50 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, to reflect the impact of the delay and the time and trouble expended by the resident chasing a response.

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our spotlight report on damp and mould recommended a landlord:
1. Together with residents, should review the information and materials, strike the right tone, and are effective in helping residents avoid damp and mould.
2. Considers whether its record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
3. Should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
Further, our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights said it is important for a landlord to consider accessibility, aids and adaptations to existing homes, as well as the level of service provision, communication, and relationship building. This is with both the resident and partner support agencies.
Overall, the landlord’s communication was poor and had it considered the above recommendations, it may have mitigated some detriment experienced in this case.
Additionally, the landlord is reminded that the complaint handling code is statutory and emphasises landlord accountability and transparency.