Sanctuary Housing Association — case 202505775

Decision Case ID 202505775 Decision type Investigation Landlord Sanctuary Housing Association Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 20 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a maisonette. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. In 2024, she reported the bathroom ventilation system was not working. She said this caused damp and mould. In May 2025, she complained to the landlord as the issues were outstanding. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: Ventilation system repairs.

The resident’s damp and mould reports. The resident’s complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of ventilation system repairs. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of ventilation system repairs There were avoidable delays in the landlord’s handling of ventilation system repairs.

This was due to poor record keeping during transition of the building ownership from the former freeholder to the landlord. However, it has completed the repair, and its compensation offer and apology were proportionate in line with its policies and our remedies guidance. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports The landlord’s communication about responsibility for internal repairs and damp and mould treatment was poor. It missed opportunities to explain the terms of the lease and its complaints team provided incorrect information.

The landlord’s complaint handling There were minor delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, its compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. 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 complaints team manager 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 18 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about damp and mould.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 18 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend the landlord pays the resident its previous compensation offer of £400 for repair and complaint handling delays if it has not already done so. The offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and we make the reasonable redress finding on that basis.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 16 May 2025 The resident complained to the landlord about unresolved bathroom ventilation repairs which she first reported in July 2024. She said despite engineer visits it was not working and the damp was getting worse. She said the landlord had a “dismissive and disrespectful attitude”. She asked it to complete ventilation repairs and mould work. 3 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and gave a response deadline of 17 June 2025.

16 June 2025 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said the resident reported ventilation concerns on 28 May 2025 and it attended on 2 June 2025. It said it could find no record of earlier reports and explained it could provide no details prior to it taking ownership of the building. It booked a damp and mould appointment for 16 June 2025, but it rearranged this to 23 June 2025. It apologised for delays and distress and upheld her complaint. It offered £100 compensation, comprising: £25 for its late complaint response £25 for time, trouble, and inconvenience for significant delays, impact and effort £25 future offer until the end of July 2025 for work completion £25 for its lack of repair history 23 June 2025 The resident escalated her complaint.

She was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of records and found its stage 1 compensation offer inadequate. She asked for a full complaint review from July 2024, accountability for its failings, assurance it would review internal procedures, and a revised compensation offer. 27 June 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation and said it would respond by 21 August 2025. 10 August 2025 The landlord sent its final complaint response. It said its first recorded repair for the ventilation was 28 May 2025.

It apologised for the issues with its earlier records. It said it complete ventilation works within its policy timescale and treated mould on 23 June 2025. It gave advice on preventing damp and mould in future. It apologised for poor conductor conduct and attitude. It upheld her repairs complaint and offered £400 compensation in place of its stage 1 offer, comprising: £350 for time, trouble, and inconvenience relating to delays, poor record keeping, contractor conduct, and poor communication £50 for complaint handling delays Referral to the Ombudsman The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and compensation offer.

She asked us to investigate. She would like to know if the landlord has met its obligations under the lease and whether its compensation offer was fair. 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 handling of ventilation system repairs Finding Reasonable redress The landlord took ownership of the building in or around April 2024. The resident said she first reported problems with the ventilation system in July 2024. We have not seen a record of this report. However, we can see she reported this issue on 28 August 2024. There are no records after this until 16 January 2025 when the landlord attended. As such, it is unclear whether it completed any visits or repairs between these dates.

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 45 days. The ventilation system is communal, and the landlord is responsible for repairs. In communication to us, it said it managed repairs in partnership with the former freeholder until March 2025. It said this limited its ability to exercise full oversight and control over contractor performance. However, it acknowledged this contributed to delays and inconsistent service delivery. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its first record of the resident reporting a ventilation issue was 28 May 2025.

It relied upon a lack of records prior to its ownership of the building throughout its complaint responses and later communication with us. However, it has provided evidence relating to her report in August 2024 and contractor visits in January and February 2025. Therefore, it is clear the landlord holds some repairs record prior to May 2025. In January 2025, contractors found the communal roof fan working but the resident’s ceiling vent full of debris with clogged ducting. It said there was “very little” airflow.

The contractor found the same situation in February 2025 but could not complete works without authorisation from the landlord. It is unclear why they reattended without permission to complete works. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised new works to repair the ventilation system. It attended on 2 June 2025 and completed repairs. Of the £100 compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 1 response, £50 related directly to ventilation repairs for delays and its lack of historical repairs records.

This offer is in line with its policy for low impact service failures. However, it completed repairs almost 10 months since the first record of the resident reporting the issue and its offer did not account for this delay. The resident raised concerns about the repair and the landlord’s record keeping in her stage 2 complaint. In its response, it apologised for the lack of records. It said it completed repairs within policy timescales from her report in May 2025. However, it also said it was unacceptable for her to have been without functioning ventilation for almost a year.

It increased its compensation offer to £350 for time, trouble and inconvenience. This was in line with its policy for a service failure with high impact on a resident and our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The resident told us the landlord fixed the ventilation. There were avoidable delays in its handling of the repair. However, its apology and final compensation offer were fair under its policy and in line with our dispute resolution principles. As such, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident. Complaint The handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports Finding Service failure The resident reported damp and mould caused by issues with the ventilation system in August 2024.

Leaseholders are responsible for internal property repairs. However, there is no evidence the landlord responded to her report to discuss responsibility for treating the mould. In her complaint in May 2025, the resident asked the landlord to complete mould works. She said its delay in repairing the ventilation system had caused damp and mould to worsen. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed a damp and mould appointment for 23 June 2025. During this appointment it completed a mould wash on the bathroom ceiling.

The resident did not include damp and mould in her formal escalation request. However, she sent a follow-up email on 27 June 2025 to say the mould wash had not fully cleared the damp. The landlord included this in its stage 2 response and said its operative reported the damp and mould as minor when completing the treatment. It gave preventative advice and told her to make further reports if it became a major concern. The resident was unhappy with its response and asked the landlord to repair the ceiling to the condition it was in prior to the damage.

Its complaints team initially said they would raise a new job for this but retracted this after its homeownership team said the repair would be the resident’s responsibility. It recommended she contact her insurer. While frustrating, this advice was in line with the lease agreement. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s communication surrounding damp and mould. It missed several opportunities to explain the resident’s responsibilities under the lease and told her to report further issues to it in its stage 2 response.

It completed a mould treatment which could have been a positive step toward repairing the relationship between it and the resident. However, it did not explain any following repairs would be her responsibility until after its final complaint response. As such, we find service failure and will order the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation in line with its policy and our remedies guidance. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy.

It will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It can extend its response time at both stages if it needs more time to investigate. Its policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord took 11 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This was outside its policy timescale. While it sent its response within 10 working days of acknowledgment, it had already caused a delay.

In its stage 1 response, it offered £25 compensation for this and a general apology for all failings. This was in line with its compensation policy for a minor complaint handling delay. The landlord extended its stage 2 investigation in line with its policy timescales. It sent its final response within the extension period. In its response, it increased its compensation offer for complaint handling delays to £50. This was inclusive of its stage 1 offer. It stayed in line with its compensation policy.

Its final offer was in line with our remedies guidance for service failure with a short duration. As such, we find the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling delays. Learning While trying to resolve the complaint, the landlord’s complaint team provided incorrect information. It must ensure it is giving the correct advice in its complaint responses by communicating internally with relevant teams about an issue if it is unsure. Knowledge information management (record keeping) There were significant issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

We acknowledge this was a transition period from the previous landlord and freeholder. However, the lack of records caused the resident time and trouble in chasing delayed repairs. Communication The landlord’s communication was poor in this case. It did not communicate clearly or correctly about damp and mould, and it did not keep the resident regularly updated on the status of repairs.