Sanctuary Housing Association (202530793)

Decision
Case ID	202530793
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

In 2022, the resident reported damp and mould in the property and later instructed solicitors to pursue a disrepair claim. The claim was settled in 2023. In January 2024, the landlord carried out a further inspection and identified additional issues contributing to damp and mould. The resident subsequently reported that ongoing damp conditions had caused significant damage to their personal belongings. They also said the condition of the property had affected their mental health and coincided with a particularly difficult period for the household, as their child was undergoing cancer treatment.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s handling of a request for compensation to address damage caused to personal items.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for compensation to address damage caused to personal items.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In its stage one response the landlord committed to an inspection to identify any additional repair issues. It later cancelled the inspection as it felt all repairs in the property had been completed. Cancelling the inspection was unreasonable considering the history of repairs in the property. Additionally, an inspection presented the landlord with an opportunity to build better relations with the resident and to identify potential repair issues at an early stage.
The landlord’s communication around the request for compensation was unclear and incomplete. Additionally, the landlord did not allow the resident sufficient time to provide relevant information.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings, and it offered compensation that was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

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 provided by a senior member of staff. 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 25 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,025 made up as follows: The £1,845 previously offered to address the distress associated with its handling of damp and mould in the property. The £1,030 previously offered to address damage to a sofa and television. £150 to address the distress associated with the landlord’s communication around the request for compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 June 2026
3	Inspection Order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a damp and mould inspection to be conducted by an independent specialist. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. 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. The landlord must ensure that the specialist: Inspects the interior and exterior of the property to outline any factors that may contribute to damp and mould in the property. Assesses if the repairs already completed to assess damp and mould in the property have been successful. 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 the damp and mould. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution. The likely timescales to complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord is to provide a copy of the report with the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 25 June 2026
4	Schedule of repairs order The landlord is to review the findings of the damp and mould inspection and consider what action it is to take to ensure lasting and effective resolution to the presence of damp and mould in the property. It is to use the information obtained to produce a schedule of repairs and a proposed timeline of completion. A copy of this is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 09 July 2026
5	Communication around compensation order Within 4 weeks the landlord must contact the resident to discuss the reports of damage occurring after the 2023 repairs. The landlord is to enquire about and record the extent of the damage and the value of the items. The landlord is to also explain the role of its liability insurers to the resident and provide relevant details so the resident can consider pursuing a claim. The landlord is to consider the information obtained from the resident about the reported damage, and the failings outlined in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord is to explain its position in writing on compensating for, or replacing, the items in writing. This is to include if it will progress the matter via its liability insurers.	No later than 23 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As the resident has told us they wish to be moved due to the condition of their property, the landlord should inform the resident if it would support a managed move. It should also explain its processes around internal moves.
If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the compensation previously offered of £125 for its complaint handling.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 June 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord about issues in the property. They said: The property had a history of subsidence, leaks and damp and mould, this meant the property had never felt liveable. The damp and mould issues had been highly disruptive, and had led to the family being temporarily rehoused twice. The issues also occurred at a challenging time for the family as their son was undergoing cancer treatment and they were awaiting back surgery. The resident said the household was often ill and one of their children had developed asthma. They felt this was due to the condition of the property. Mould had returned to the property around a month after the 2023 damp and mould works had finished. Additional damp and mould works occurred in 2024. During this period of repairs their TV was damaged, mouldy cupboards were removed and then placed back in the kitchen, and the configuration of the units changed so their fridge could no longer fit in the kitchen. They produced a list of personal items that had been damaged by damp and mould which they had to dispose of. They wanted the landlord to compensate them for the damaged items. They said the repeated repair issues had led them to experience severe depression.
7 July 2025	After the landlord had conducted some enquiries around the previous legal proceedings, the member of staff dealing with the 5 June 2025 email passed the matter onto the complaints team.
22 August 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response. It said: It apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property to identify any additional repairs. It committed to actively monitoring any repairs and to keep the resident updated on its progress. Its legal department advised that the landlord would be unable to compensate the resident for damage to a washer and dryer which occurred during the 2023 works. This was because the parties had come to an agreed settlement relating to these works.
2 September 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the stage one response did not adequately address the complained of issues. They felt the landlord had minimised their concerns when it said the resident wanted compensation for a washer dryer. It had failed to consider the other damaged items and concerns about the condition of the property.
17 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It apologised for the time taken to produce its stage 2 response and that it had extended its anticipated timescales. It acknowledged its stage one response did not address all the complained of issues, and that its tone appeared to minimise the resident’s concerns. It apologised that the inspection committed to at stage one did not occur and said it had cancelled the inspection as there were no outstanding repairs in the property. It said it was unable to consider the resident’s concerns around the issues relevant to the legal settlement made in March 2023 under its complaints procedure. This included any damage that occurred during this time. It said it could consider the resident’s concerns about repairs that occurred from 2024 onwards. In January 2024 it inspected the roof of the property and identified issues. Delays in conducting associated repairs occurred, this meant the works were concluded in April 2024. An inspection occurred in November 2024 where it was identified that the roof repairs had not been conducted to a satisfactory standard. Additional repairs were then conducted in January 2025. The household was temporarily rehoused between 1 April 2025 and 6 May 2025 due to the scale of internal repairs. It sincerely apologised for the disruption the resident experienced while they were rehoused. Regarding the compensation request, it said it would only consider costs relating to damage which occurred after the settlement. It offered compensation of £750 for a sofa it assisted in disposing of, and £280 for a TV that was damaged during the 2024 works. It offered the resident compensation of £400 for their time, trouble and inconvenience, and £125 for its complaint handling. It also offered £1,445 to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the home, this was calculated as 20% of the resident’s rent from January 2024 to April 2025.
27 October 2025	The resident asked us to investigate their complaint. They felt the landlord’s offer of compensation was unreasonable as the home was in disrepair, and they had been left with hardly any furniture. They told us that the issues had a serious impact on their mental and physical health.
2 February 2026	The resident notified us that there had been a significant deterioration in the condition of the property. They said mould was growing on walls and there was damp throughout the property. The resident said they wanted to be moved to a suitable property. On 11 February 2026 we notified the landlord that it may have a responsibility to take action in the property under Awaab’s Law. The landlord told us following this notification it conducted repairs to the property’s guttering as this was leading to damp conditions.

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	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident and the landlord were involved in a disrepair claim relating to reports of damp and mould made in 2022. These proceedings resulted in a financial settlement and an agreed schedule of works, which the landlord completed in 2023. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we do not usually consider complaints about matters that have been, or could have been, resolved through legal proceedings. In this case, our assessment focuses on events that occurred after the completion of the agreed works in 2023. Any concerns about the repairs or damage could have been pursued further through the parties’ solicitors at that time.
The resident has said that damp and mould affected the household’s health and that they sustained an injury following a fall which they associate with the condition of the property. We cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions, or the condition of the property, caused or contributed to ill health or personal injury. These matters fall outside our remit and require a decision that can only be made by a court or through agreement between the parties.
If the resident wishes to pursue these issues further, they should seek independent legal advice.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it takes a zero-tolerance approach. It will complete any repairs in line with its repairs policy. The landlord will provide updates during the process and will contact the resident 3 months after repairs to check if the issue remains.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 45 days. Where a household member is vulnerable, it aims to complete repairs within 28 days. For major repairs, it aims to complete works within 90 days.
There is a history of damp and mould at the property. Reports made in 2022 led to a settlement of a disrepair claim and agreed works, which the landlord completed in 2023. The resident told us that damp and mould returned soon after these works. While we are not assessing the landlord’s handling of the 2023 repairs, it would be best practise for the landlord to use information relating to the history of the property to inform its actions when additional reports were made.
The resident told us that the condition of the property negatively affected the household’s wellbeing, and they felt it was a failing that the landlord did not successfully rectify the issues in the property in 2023. They told us that one of their children had moved out due to the condition of the property, which caused them upset and distress.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of the damp and mould. It also said it recognised the disruption the family had experienced from being temporarily rehoused twice, as well as the impact of living with repairs for a significant period. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged the distress experienced.
Records show the landlord attempted to address the damp and mould between January 2024 and May 2025. This was a prolonged period for repairs to remain ongoing, particularly given the household’s vulnerabilities. During this period roof works were completed in April 2024, the works were later found to be ineffective and required further repair. This would have caused additional disruption. The landlord acknowledged this impact and offered £1,845 compensation.
The compensation offer reflected the impact the works had on the resident and their family, it also specified that £1,445 reflected the loss of enjoyment of the family’s home. This amount was reasonable in the circumstances. It took into account distress and inconvenience, and how the repairs impacted familial life. Under our compensation guidance we may award residents similar compensation where a failing had a high impact and occurred over a significant period. While landlords are not obliged to offer compensation in line with our guidance, it indicates that the landlord recognised the significance of its failings.
In its stage one response, the landlord said it would arrange a surveyor to inspect the property to identify any further repair issues. The inspection was scheduled for 2 September 2025 but was later cancelled. The landlord said it cancelled the visit because it believed all repairs had been completed.
The decision to cancel the inspection was a shortcoming. The purpose of the inspection was to confirm whether any issues remained. Given the history of damp and mould and earlier unsuccessful repairs, completing the inspection would have helped identify any potential problems in the property. It would have also supported in the landlord building positive engagement with the resident. Additionally, the decision demonstrates poor customer service by committing to an inspection and then withdrawing it without further assessment. It is on this basis that we consider a service failure occurred.
On 14 November 2025, after the complaints process had ended, the resident reported further damp and mould. The landlord said the issues were linked to the guttering and it arranged repairs for 17 December 2025. This appointment did not proceed due to parking issues. The works were completed in March 2026, this was outside the landlord’s repair timescales. Had the damp and mould inspection committed to in the stage one response gone ahead there is a possibility that the guttering issues may have been identified earlier. The landlord should learn from this outcome.
The resident said since bringing their complaint to us the condition of the property had deteriorated. They said there was mould in the hallway and front bedrooms, and they had recorded high damp readings. They said the conditions had damaged food and household items, as well as internal finishes such as plastering.
We have ordered the landlord to arrange a full damp and mould survey by an independent specialist. We have ordered this to allow the landlord to fulfil its stage one commitment and due to the resident’s reports of re-occurrence of damp and mould. Additionally, an inspection presents an opportunity for a specialist to inspect the damp and mould works already completed and assess if the repairs have been successful. Given the history of repeat issues and unsuccessful repairs, we consider an independent assessment is appropriate.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request for compensation to address damage caused to personal items.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not award compensation through its complaints process for personal injury claims or damage claims valued above £5,000. In such cases, claims are managed by its liability insurers. The policy also states it will not consider compensation where the matter relates to a legal claim or where legal proceedings are a more appropriate resolution route.
On 5 June 2025 the resident provided the landlord with a list of items they said had been damaged by damp and mould in the property. The resident asked for compensation, and said the items had to be disposed of due to the landlord’s failure to address the damp and mould. The resident did not specify when the damage occurred or when the items were disposed of. They estimated the value at more than £8,000.
The resident told us that, following the 2023 settlement, they used the compensation to replace items previously damaged by mould. They said the damp and mould continued after the 2023 works, and due to the condition of the property not improving further items were damaged. The resident told us the losses referred to in their 5 June 2025 email related to damage that occurred after the settlement.
We asked the landlord whether it considered referring the matter to its liability insurers, or if it advised the resident to do so. The landlord only considered involving its insurers in relation to the personal injury reports, which are outside the scope of this investigation. Given the value of the reported losses, and the reported recurrence of damp and mould after previous repairs, it would have been fair for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its liability insurers so they could consider this option. This was a shortcoming.
On 7 July 2025, the landlord decided to assess the compensation request under its complaints process. It acknowledged the complaint on 21 August 2025 and asked the resident to provide photographs and further details of the damaged items and their value. However, it issued its stage one response one day later on 22 August 2025. This meant the landlord did not allow the resident a reasonable opportunity to provide the requested information. This was not appropriate.
After escalating their complaint, the resident provided details of the values of their carpeting and sofa as well as photographs of the condition of the property. They specified in this email that the sofa and carpets were purchased in 2023. This supports the resident’s account to us that the items were purchased after the 2022/2023 works. We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord followed up on the reported damage to the carpets. This is unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would not compensate for damage which occurred during the period covered by the earlier legal proceedings. This was consistent with its policy. It asked the resident to provide further information about when the damage occurred. However, the landlord could have taken further steps to obtain this information before issuing its stage 2 response, this could have been achieved by directly asking the resident via a phone call or email. This would have allowed it to provide a clearer explanation of its decision on compensation, and it could have led to earlier resolution.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would compensate the resident for a television damaged during recent repairs and for a sofa it had assisted in disposing of. Its records indicate that other items were removed at the same time, including a chair, bed frame, chest of drawers and 2 rugs. The landlord did not explain why it offered compensation for the sofa but not the other items. This lack of explanation was a further shortcoming.
The resident told us that damp and mould in the property has caused a significant amount of damage to their personal possessions. They said they no longer use the downstairs of the property as the majority of their furniture have been disposed of following damage from the mould.
Overall, the landlord’s communication about the damaged items was unclear and incomplete. In particular:
1. It did not allow reasonable time for the resident to provide relevant evidence before issuing its stage one reply.
2. The landlord was not sufficiently curious in its attempts to understand the context of when the reported damage occurred.
3. The landlord did not follow up on reports relating to the damaged carpets.
4. It did not provide details of its liability insurers despite the value of the claim.
5. It did not explain why it offered compensation for the sofa, but not other items it removed and disposed of at the same time.
We consider the above failings to be maladministration when considering:
1. The landlord was aware of the family’s vulnerabilities and the significant history of damp and mould in the property.
2. Greater effort should have been made to understand the context of the damage considering the impact described by the resident.
To put this right, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the reported damage from 2024 onwards. During this contact, the landlord should explain the role of its liability insurers and provide the relevant details if the resident wishes to pursue a claim. Within 4 weeks of this discussion, the landlord should provide a written response setting out its position on compensating for or replacing the items. When forming its decision, the landlord is to consider that the damage reportedly occurred after it had completed repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot meet either deadline, it is required to contact the resident within the relevant timeframe and request a 10 working day extension.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 June 2025 to report ongoing issues with the property and associated damage. Internal records show the landlord decided on 7 July 2025 to treat this as a complaint. Given the previous legal proceedings and the value of the reported losses, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider how to best handle the matter. However, once it made this decision, it should have informed the resident. The resident only became aware the matter was being treated as a complaint after they contacted the landlord on 18 August 2025 to request an update. This was a shortcoming.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 August 2025, 34 working days after deciding to treat the matter as a complaint. This exceeded its policy timescales. It then issued its stage one response within the required timeframe following the acknowledgement.
At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the escalation, requested an extension, and issued its final response within its policy timescales. In its stage 2 response, it recognised the delay at stage one and that its response had not fully addressed the issues raised. It apologised and offered £125 compensation. This was proportionate in the circumstances.

Learning

Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could have kept more detailed records around the damage caused to the items it disposed of.

Communication

During its handling of the complaint the landlord could have taken more appropriate steps to understand details of the reported damage. Had the landlord called the resident to discuss the particulars of their complaint, or met them in person, it may have obtained additional details which would enable it to provide a more detailed response.