Sanctuary Housing Association (202538954)

Decision
Case ID	202538954
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her child and has health conditions. She reported damp and mould in the property, which she said was affecting the household’s health. She later complained that despite reporting the matter and surveyor attendance, mould persisted. She believed the landlord had not resolved the underlying issues and a number of works were needed, including repairs to the windows and back door.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated works.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated works.
   2. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould and associated works

5. The landlord acknowledged service failures, including lengthy delays in addressing damp, mouldand repairs. It recognised its errors, apologised and offered compensation in line with our guidance. It also committed to completing outstanding works.

Complaint handling

6. Although the stage 1 response was slightly late, there is no evidence this caused significant detriment to the resident, and its compensation adequately remedied this.

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.

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow it.

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £1,478 as offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already. We found reasonable redress for its handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repairs, and its complaint handling based on this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 November 2025	The resident complained about damp and mould saying it had persisted for several years despite multiple inspections. She reported damage to belongings including carpet and furniture, and said the situation affected her son’s health. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs.
15 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged lengthy delays in window replacement and damp and mould works. It agreed that repeated inspections did not result in works and accepted its communication was poor. It confirmed it would progress with the window replacements, arrange damp and mould treatment, and review other repairs. It apologised and offered £200 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
16 December 2025	–       The resident escalated the complaint. She reported worsening damp and mould and said her son could no longer use his bedroom. She said the landlord delayed its response beyond the expected timeframe. She also said the compensation offered did not reflect the stress, time, and impact experienced.
9 February 2026	–       The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint after identifying delays, poor communication, and missed opportunities to progress repairs. It acknowledged defects to the back door and windows, with significant gaps between inspection and follow up action. The landlord apologised, confirmed scheduled repair appointments and set out a plan for outstanding and further works. It increased the total compensation to £1,478.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she remains unclear about the scope and timing of the planned works, including the back door and windows replacements. She felt the landlord was unwilling to complete repairs to the flat above, which she said also had damp and believed the issues would therefore reoccur. As an outcome, she wanted further compensation and to be rehoused.

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	Damp and mould and associated works
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we’ve not investigated

7. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in November 2025, where she described damp and mould as an ongoing problem over the last several years. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Accordingly, this report will focus on events from July 2025, this being the initial report of mould in 2025, up to the landlord’s final response in February 2026.

What we’ve investigated

8. The landlord accepted that its actions fell short of its repair service standards and  acknowledged delays and poor communication. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the impact this had on the resident, as well as committing to complete repairs and provided a schedule of future appointments, and offered £1,453 compensation including a partial rent refund to reflect the impact on the resident and loss of enjoyment of the property.
9. When a landlord acknowledges failings in its services our role is to consider whether its response and remedies were proportionate, and in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
10. The landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould was delayed and uncoordinated. Although a surveyor attended in July 2025 and identified likely external causes, no meaningful follow-on action was taken until November 2025 after the resident complained. This left the household living with unresolved damp and mould for a prolonged period.
11. The situation did not materially improve after the complaint. The records show further unexplained delays, and the purpose of several appointments are not clearly documented. The resident also had to repeatedly chase for updates and the landlord did not manage her expectations about the work timescales.
12. Early inspections also did not fully capture the extent of the issues. The resident involved the local council around late January 2026. The landlord’s January 2026 inspection did not identify the range of defects later found by the local council, including sources of damp, structural concerns, and ventilation problems. This contributed to further delays in addressing the root causes.
13. However, from early 2026 the landlord’s approach improved. It engaged constructively with the local council, carried out further inspections, and began raising and completing a broader range of works. This showed a clearer understanding of the issues and a more coordinated effort to resolve them.
14. The landlord also took practical steps to put matters right. It committed to improved communication, clearer planning of repairs, and completion of outstanding works. The evidence shows it largely followed through, with increased engagement, clear appointments, and continued efforts to progress repairs.
15. Recent information from the landlord in May 2026 confirms that a substantial programme of works is in place. The landlord has commissioned specialist surveys, identified the underlying causes of damp and mould, instructed contractors, and arranged a temporary move to complete extensive works. This demonstrated sustained progress following earlier delays.
16. The landlord’s compensation offer recognised both the duration and impact of the issues, as well as the likelihood of further disruption. It offered £1,453 for this issue, which represents a high level of compensation and is proportionate to the scale and nature of the failings identified. The amount aligns with our guidance for cases involving a series of significant failures that had a detrimental impact on the household.
17. £550 was allocated for time, trouble and inconvenience and future disruption. This reflects the prolonged delays, the resident’s repeated need to chase the landlord, and poor communication. The remaining £903 was awarded for loss of enjoyment of the property. This was based on the period during which follow-on works were not progressed, extending to 90 days beyond the final response date when the landlord had anticipated completion. The landlord attributed this to a partial loss of use of the home, specifically her child’s bedroom being unusable. It calculated this as a partial rent refund, applying a percentage of the rent over the affected period.
18. Taken together with its apology, clear commitment to complete works, and evidence of ongoing action, the landlord’s remedies were proportionate and reasonable, and adequately put matters right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

Complaint handling

19. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in both definition and response timescales. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 November 2025. On 27 November 2025, it advised it needed a further 10 working days to respond. This extension was clearly communicated and appropriately managed expectations.
20. Although the stage 1 response was dated 8 December 2025, it was not issued to the resident until 15 December 2025. This took it beyond the extended deadline contrary to its policy and the Code. While the delay was a service failure, the evidence does not show it caused significant detriment to the resident.
21. The resident escalated on 16 December 2025. The landlord contacted her on 25 January 2026, within the stage 2 timescale, to advise of a further delay, and issued its final stage 2 response on 9 February 2026. This was within the extended timeframe and aligned with its policy.
22. In its final response, the landlord addressed queries about rent reduction and rehousing and offered £25 compensation for not explaining these in its first complaint response. However, the evidence shows the resident raised these issues after the stage 1 response. The landlord therefore could not have addressed them in earlier. Nonetheless, the compensation it offered was sufficient for the earlier delay. A learning point has been made below.

Learning

23. The landlord did well by recognising the value of the resident’s complaint and committing to learn from it to improve its future service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. In this case, the landlord’s repair record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

25. The landlord accepted its communication fell short and that no action was taken between July and November 2025. It should provide clear, consistent updates on repairs, adhere to published complaint timescales, and ensure responses are issued on the same day they are dated.