Sanctuary Housing Association (202532869)

Decision
Case ID	202532869
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident reported issues with damp, mould, and cold conditions in the wet room and porch area since she moved into the property in 2019. She complained to the landlord after it did not fully complete works it scheduled for 20 August 2025. She raised concerns about the impact of the property conditions on her health, including difficulty regulating her body temperature due to the cold. Although the landlord did not formally record vulnerabilities until after the resident complained, we have seen evidence that the resident had previously informed the landlord that she has chronic arthritis and that her daughter has a lung condition.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and cold in the wet room and porch area.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and cold in the wet room and porch area.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There were significant delays in progressing works the landlord identified on 11 March 2025, with limited explanation provided to the resident. The landlord did not consistently take the resident’s reported vulnerabilities into account when prioritising repairs. Although the landlord offered compensation and committed to completing outstanding works, the works remain outstanding. As a result, the actions taken did not fully remedy the impact of prolonged delay, poor communication, and ongoing uncertainty for the resident.
The landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response, which was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code. Although it apologised and offered £50 compensation, this was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address all of the points raised by the resident and did not clearly set out what evidence it had considered, which limited transparency and fell short of the Code’s requirements.

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 01 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 made up as follows: • £1,000 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and cold in the wetroom and porch area. • £100 for its complaints handling. This amount must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by that date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 01 June 2026
3	Works order The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the works it has already agreed to carry out, including those identified following the damp survey carried out on 11 March 2025, to address damp, mould, and cold in the wetroom and porch area are started no later than the due date. The landlord must provide the resident with a clear written scope and schedule of works, setting out what works it will complete and the timescales for commencement and completion. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: why it cannot start the works by the due and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or the steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 01 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should respond to the resident’s concerns about increased energy costs, which it noted in its understanding of the complaint but did not address. It may wish to explain any support, advice, or signposting it can offer, taking account of the resident’s circumstances.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 September 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that following several surveys, the landlord arranged works to address the issues on 20 August 2025. However, she said the operative who attended did not complete all the works agreed. She said the wall in the area was chipping, very cold, and damp to the touch. She raised concerns about the landlord’s communication and that it had not let her know when it would complete the work. She also raised concerns about the impact of the cold area on her health, particularly her difficulty regulating body temperature. She informed the landlord of multiple health conditions.
6 November 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 and apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issues and for the lack of contact. It said it had reviewed its notes and records. It acknowledged that works remained outstanding and said that it was waiting for a quote. The landlord referred to an inspection on 4 November 2025 and noted the resident’s further reports of mould, a cold and crumbling wall, her and her daughter’s health concerns, and financial difficulty linked to heating costs. It said it would ask its works coordinators to prioritise and monitor the required works. The landlord acknowledged that it had incorrectly cancelled the complaint as a duplicate and that the resident did not receive a stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and offered £450 compensation: £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience £100 for future impact until 31 December 2025 £50 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us as she said the landlord had delayed repairs and that they remained outstanding. She said the property conditions continued to affect her health. She also said her flooring was damaged. She explained that she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs, including treating the wall, insulating it, installing a radiator, and redecorating. She also said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about increased energy bills. She asked for further compensation to reflect the impact of the delays and poor communication.

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 the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and cold in the wet room and porch area.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident reported that she has experienced damp, mould, and cold issues in the wet room and porch area since moving into the property in 2019. However, we have not seen evidence of a formal complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process until 6 November 2025. The landlord also told us that the resident had made previous complaints, but we have not seen evidence of this. In addition, the landlord did not clearly set out in its final response which events or evidence it had considered. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from 22 October 2024 onwards.
The resident raised concerns about how the damp, mould, and cold in the wet room and porch area was impacting her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord took appropriate account of the information available to it when managing repairs.
The resident also raised concerns about the condition of the flooring. However, this issue did not form part of the original complaint to the landlord, and the landlord did not consider it in its stage 2 response. As a result, we have not considered it. The resident may wish to raise this separately with the landlord if it is still a concern.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete standard repairs within 45 days, with an enhanced service of 28 days for residents with vulnerabilities. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that it will tailor its approach based on residents’ needs and that it operates a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. It will follow a 4-step process to identify, remedy, resolve, and prevent damp and mould.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord did not consistently record the location of the damp and mould. It referred at various times to the wet room, porch, kitchen, rear hallway, and outhouse. This made it difficult to assess whether the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and the repairs effectively. It also likely hindered effective diagnosis, repair planning, and increased the risk that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in full.
The landlord provided records showing that it completed mould treatment on 22 October 2024. The same records noted that colder walls might require further investigation during the winter. There is a gap in the records until the landlord raised an order for a damp survey on 30 January 2025. This delay was not consistent with the landlord’s stated zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
The landlord booked the damp survey for 11 March 2025, 30 days after it raised the order for the survey.. The landlord’s repair records from 2023 note that the resident has chronic arthritis and that her daughter has a lung condition. There was no evidence that the landlord took this information into account when scheduling the survey, despite the landlord’s policy commitment to an enhanced service for residents with vulnerabilities. This was a service failure.
We have not seen the outcome of the survey from 11 March 2025. The resident chased for an update on 24 April 2025. The landlord’s internal records from the same date noted that follow on works were required. Despite further internal chasers on 3 July and 7 July 2025, the landlord did not raise follow on works until 16 July 2025, 127 days after the inspection. This exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales and caused avoidable delay. We have not seen evidence that the landlord explained the reasons of the delay to the resident. It raised the following repairs under a 21-day priority:
1. Brush down and remove paint from the walls.
2. Redecorate the utility area.
3. Install ventilation fan to rear utility room.
4. Install envirovent infinity unit into utility room area.
5. Make good hole around kitchen fab.
6. Block up both vents internally and externally.
The appointments were poorly coordinated by the landlord. The landlord also raised a repair on 13 July 2025 to box in pipework, but it is not clear whether this was in response to the 11 March 2025 survey. The landlord recorded it attempted to attend the property on 12 August 2025 to carry out this work, without evidence that it had agreed an appointment with the resident. We have also seen evidence that a member of the landlord’s staff raised internal concerns on 13 August 2025 about the complexity and resourcing of the works booked for 20 August 2025. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord acted on these concerns. On 20 August 2025 the landlord only completed some of the works.
The landlord told us that on receipt of the resident’s complaint on 2 September 2025, it completed a new resident profile form to ensure its records reflected the resident’s circumstances and to support reasonable adjustments going forward. This was a positive step. However, earlier identification and recording of vulnerabilities would have supported a timelier and more appropriate prioritisation of repairs.
The landlord raised additional works, including boxing in pipework, on 8 September 2025 and completed this on 16 October 2025, 95 days later and significantly outside the landlord’s published timescales. During this period, the resident chased the landlord for updates 3 further times. The landlord’s internal records show it acknowledged that the resident’s health conditions were being exacerbated by the property conditions.
Further records from 31 October 2025 show that the landlord’s Awaab’s Law team was monitoring and chasing the outstanding works, which was appropriate. However, the landlord recorded that it was unable to clarify what it had agreed. The landlord told the resident the same day that a surveyor would attend on 4 November 2025, although it is unclear whether this follow up resulted from the resident’s continued chasing or from landlord oversight.
The landlord attended on 4 November 2025 and identified slight mould in the wetroom, high humidity levels, and noted the wet room and porch area was much colder than the rest of the property. The landlord assessed the mould as non significant and recorded that Awaab’s Law did not apply. It also identified that further insulation and ventilation may be required. While the landlord assessed that the repairs did not trigger the statutory requirements under Awaab’s Law, the landlord should have still acted in line with its own damp and mould policy. It should have provided a clear plan and timescale for resolving the issues identified, which it did not do.
In its final response dated 6 November 2025, the landlord offered £400 compensation and said it would monitor outstanding repairs. However, it did not clearly set out what works remained outstanding or provide a plan for completion. At that point, some of the works it identified in March 2025 had been outstanding for approximately 169 days.
Following the final response, further delays occurred. From the evidence we have seen, the landlord did not reraise works that had had been outstanding since March 2025 until 25 February 2026. The landlord later approved major works to insulate the area on 13 March 2026. At the time of this determination, we have not been provided with evidence that the landlord has completed the works. The repeated appointments, cancellations, and re quoting were not in line with the landlord’s policy to complete repairs promptly and, where possible, in one visit.
Continued failures in planning, coordination, and oversight of repairs suggest the landlord has not learnt from the complaint. These ongoing failings were likely to have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord and caused continued distress, particularly in light of the resident’s concerns about how the condition of the property was impacting her and her daughter’s health.
Whilst the landlord attempted to put the matter right, the £400 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £600. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a clear scope and schedule of works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 September 2025, within its complaint policy timeframe of 5 working days, but it did not issue a stage 1 response. The landlord later accepted that it had incorrectly cancelled the stage 1 complaint after assuming it duplicated a previous case. This was a complaint handling failure, as the Code requires landlords to provide a written response at each stage.
The landlord took 39 working days to respond to the complaint, from when it logged it on 12 September 2025. This was outside its 10 and 20 working day timeframes for stage 1 and stage 2 respectively. The landlord requested an extension on 22 October 2025, after the stage 1 response timeframe had already passed. The resident then had to chase for an update on 28 October 2025, before the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 November 2025. We have not seen evidence to explain why the landlord progressed the complaint directly to stage 2 when it had identified that it had failed to issue a stage 1 response. By skipping a stage, the landlord did not follow its own complaints process and missed an opportunity to review its handling of the complaint earlier, contrary to the Code.
In the stage 2 response the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about her energy bills or about the landlord’s communication, despite noting she had raised them. This did not meet the Code’s requirements for landlords to address all pints raised in the complaint definition.
While the landlord it offered £50 compensation for complaint handling, this amount did not reflect the impact of its complaint handling failures Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay further a further £50 compensation. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance. Such awards apply when the complaint handling failings may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident, and the landlord made an offer of compensation, but it is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

During this investigation the landlord has informed us that it has carried out additional complaint handling training. This is positive. The landlord may also wish to remind staff of our Centre for Learning, which provides guidance and resources to support compliance with the Code and effective complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records sometimes lacked clarity, particularly in relation to the location of damp and mould within the property and what works it had agreed. It also failed to adequately record vulnerabilities the resident raised. The landlord advised that it introduced a new repairs system in November 2024 to improve visibility and tracking. This is positive and the landlord may also find it helpful to consider the recommendations in our spotlight report on knowledge information management.

Communication

The landlord did not consistently provide the resident with clear information about what works it had agreed, when they would be completed, or the reasons for delay. This led to repeated chasing and uncertainty. Clearer, timely communication, including written confirmation of agreed actions and next steps, would help to maintain trust. The landlord may find it helpful to consider the recommendations in our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.