Sanctuary Housing Association (202440846)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat on the 14th floor of a block. The landlord is freeholder of the block and was aware the resident’s wife was pregnant from November 2024. For context, heating and hot water is provided to each property in the block via boilers in the blocks ‘plant room’. Each property has a Heat Interface Unit (HIU) which acts as a bridge between the boilers and the hot water and heating outlets in each property.
2. For clarity, the heating and hot water issues were not resolved by the end of the landlord’s complaint’s process considered in this investigation. The resident escalated another complaint to us (202519841) which can consider events beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sent for this case.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of hot water and heating repairs.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of hot water and heating repairs.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of hot water and heating repairs

7. Overall, the landlord’s approach was reactive, rather than proactive. In addition to this, it failed to:
   1. Raise emergency repairs promptly on at least 4 occasions between 18 November 2024 and 3 January 2025.
   2. Respond promptly to the resident which caused him to chase on multiple occasions.

Landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord failed to offer appropriate compensation at the earliest opportunity.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not consider

9. In the referral to us, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of communal repairs to the lift and doors. We acknowledge the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident in relation to these concerns on 2 August 2024. However, we have not seen evidence these issues specifically were escalated to stage 2. We may not consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore we have therefore not considered these issues as part of this investigation.

10. The resident’s lease agreement says the resident must not “repair or maintain or in any way interfere with the… Heat Interface Unit (HIU) or pipes… within the premises that are used in connection with… the heating systems.”
11. The landlord’s repair policy describes 4 categories of repairs, it states, loss of heating and hot water in winter (October to March) are emergency repairs. Its 4 levels of repair are: immediate – attend and make safe within 4 hours; emergency – complete repair within 24 hours; standard – complete repair within 15 working days; and planned – complete repair within 45 working days.
12. Emails between parties on 18 November 2024 showed the resident initially requested an update as to when communal boiler repairs would be completed, however the landlord had no record of its contractors visit. Instead it emailed the resident and said:
    1. Hot water issues were usually caused by lack of servicing to the HIU.
    2. The building had “ample hot water supply” and the resident should ensure the HIU service schedule was up to date.

The resident replied the same day and said there had been no consistent hot water for months and the water did not get hot in either bathroom. Despite this, there was no evidence the landlord raised an emergency repair in line with policy, which was a failing.

13. After the resident chased for updates on 19 and 20 November 2024, the landlord contacted its contractor. It asked it to visit the property, which was reasonable, and a copy of previous visit reports. The contractor replied with a copy of previous reports promptly, but there was no evidence an emergency repair was raised, or the landlord followed this up, which caused delays.
14. The resident chased for updates on 21 and 22 November 2024 and said there were “at least 14 residents in the block without hot water.” This prompted the landlord to chase its contractor who attended the same day which was positive. However, it was unclear exactly what repairs, if any, were completed.
15. The resident chased for updates on 23 and 25 November 2024 having not heard anything further and still without hot water. The landlord requested its contractors attend to restore hot water, which was reasonable. However, there was no access at the resident’s property. The appointment was rescheduled at the resident’s request. Although there was no access to the resident’s property, the evidence showed that the contractor sent a report of findings to the landlord in relation to the boiler following reports of a leak. The report recommended maintenance work to the communal boilers in the plant room.
16. After the landlord’s contractor did not arrive on 28 November 2024 or on 29 November 2024, the resident requested details of how to raise a formal complaint. The evidence showed the landlord chased the contractor on 29 November 2024, which was positive. A contractor attended, but unfortunately the resident was not home at the time of the attempted visit.
17. After the formal complaint was raised, the evidence showed the landlord acted reasonably to accommodate the resident’s availability for the rescheduled appointment on 3 December 2024. It was positive the contractor restored hot water to the property. However, the resident reported no hot water again a week later. There was no evidence the landlord took any action until the following day, which caused delay. However, the landlord’s contractor visited on 12 December 2024, outside the emergency repair timeframe, and fixed the hot water.
18. The landlord updated the resident on 6 occasions in relation to the heating system and boilers repairs between 17 December 2024 and 9 January 2025, which was positive. In this time, its contractor completed a further repair on 31 December 2024 to restore hot water to the property. However, the resident emailed 3 days later to report the hot water had failed again. There was no evidence the landlord took any action until 6 January 2025, 3 days later, which was a delay. However, it was positive it offered to provide a temporary heater to the resident after the resident raised concerns about the forecasted weather temperatures. It was unclear exactly when this was provided. The landlord then used its stage 2 response to apologise to the resident.
19. We acknowledge the landlord sent contractors to complete repairs to the resident’s property on multiple occasions while repairs to the communal boilers were completed, which was positive. However, the repairs at the resident’s property were generally carried out outside of its emergency timeframe, which was a failing. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord took a reactive, rather than proactive approach to dealing with the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water. The landlord’s communication was also poor. It should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
20. The evidence showed the landlord had to ask its contractor for copies of reports of work completed. The resident was often more informed of repairs than the landlord itself. The landlord’s record keeping has contributed to a lack of a joined up approach which has left the resident and their household without hot water and heating during winter months. The landlord did acknowledge some failings and made some attempt to put things right by apologising. But it failed to address the detriment to the resident. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, an apology was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was therefore maladministration. The landlord should pay the resident a further £250 compensation to make up for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the hot water and heating repairs up to 10 January 2025.

21. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to resolve complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It says it will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
22. The evidence showed the landlord sent both stage 1 and 2 complaint responses promptly, which was positive. However, there was no evidence of a formal acknowledgement for either complaint. Both complaint responses were upheld, however the landlord failed to consider compensation for the resident in either response, which was unreasonable. We acknowledge the resident was subsequently offered compensation as part of the second formal complaint raised in relation to heating and hot water. But it should not have taken a second complaint for the resident to be compensated for a lack of heating and hot water for the timescale investigated as part of this complaint process. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of a further £100 compensation is made in recognition of the delay offering the resident compensation.

Learning

23. The landlord should consider the steps it could take to improve record keeping, particularly in relation to buildings it is the freeholder for.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. We acknowledge the landlord had records to show communal repairs raised at the block. It also provided inspection reports for communal areas, which was positive. However, it is of concern the landlord did not have any records, or access to records, to show what work had been carried out in relation to repairs raised communally or at individual properties by its contractors. It is unclear how the landlord could monitor its responsibility to maintain communal areas and identify trends in repairs without this information.

Communication

25. It was positive the landlord issued regular updates to the resident in relation to the boiler repairs from 17 December 2024. But up to that point the evidence showed the resident continually had to chase for updates, which caused him inconvenience. Further to that, the landlord’s responses were often delayed and failed to adequately address the resident’s issues and concerns.